Florida Statute 39.522 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 39
PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CHILDREN

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 39.522

39.522 Postdisposition change of custody.—

(1) The court may change the temporary legal custody or the conditions of protective supervision at a postdisposition hearing, without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing.

(2)(a) At any time before a child is residing in the permanent placement approved at the permanency hearing, a child who has been placed in the child’s own home under the protective supervision of an authorized agent of the department, in the home of a relative, in the home of a legal custodian, or in some other place may be brought before the court by the department or by any other interested person, upon the filing of a motion alleging a need for a change in the conditions of protective supervision or the placement. If any party or the current caregiver denies the need for a change, the court shall hear all parties in person or by counsel, or both.

(b) Upon the admission of a need for a change or after such hearing, the court shall enter an order changing the placement, modifying the conditions of protective supervision, or continuing the conditions of protective supervision as ordered. The standard for changing custody of the child shall be the best interests of the child. When determining whether a change of legal custody or placement is in the best interests of the child, the court shall consider the factors listed in s. 39.01375 and the report filed by the multidisciplinary team, if applicable, unless the change of custody or placement is made pursuant to s. 63.082(6). The court shall also consider the priority of placements established under s. 39.4021 when making a decision regarding the best interest of the child in out-of-home care.

(c) If the child is not placed in foster care, the new placement for the child must meet the home study criteria and court approval under this chapter.

(3)(a) For purposes of this subsection, the term “change in physical custody” means a change by the department or community-based care lead agency to the child’s physical residential address, regardless of whether such change requires a court order to change the legal custody of the child. However, this term does not include a change in placement made pursuant to s. 63.082(6).

(b)1. In a hearing on the change of physical custody under this section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to remain permanently in his or her current physical placement if:

a. The child has been in the same safe and stable placement for 9 consecutive months or more;

b. Reunification is not a permanency option for the child;

c. The caregiver is able, willing, and eligible for consideration as an adoptive parent or permanent custodian for the child;

d. The caregiver is not requesting the change in physical placement; and

e. The change in physical placement being sought is not to reunify the child with his or her parent or sibling or transition the child from a safe and stable nonrelative caregiver to a safe and stable relative caregiver.

2. In order to rebut the presumption established in this paragraph, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the change in physical custody to determine if the change in placement is in the best interest of the child. As part of the evidentiary hearing, the court must consider competent and substantial evidence and testimony related to the factors enumerated in s. 39.01375 and any other evidence deemed relevant to a determination of placement, including evidence from a court-selected neutral and independent licensed professional with expertise in the science and research of child-parent bonding.

3. This presumption may not be rebutted solely by the expressed wishes of a biological parent, a biological relative, or a caregiver of a sibling of the child.

(c)1. The department or community-based care lead agency must notify a current caregiver who has been in the physical custody placement for at least 9 consecutive months and who meets all the established criteria in paragraph (b) of an intent to change the physical custody of the child, and a multidisciplinary team staffing must be held in accordance with ss. 39.4022 and 39.4023 at least 21 days before the intended date for the child’s change in physical custody, unless there is an emergency situation as defined in s. 39.4022(2)(b). If there is not a unanimous consensus decision reached by the multidisciplinary team, the department’s official position must be provided to the parties within the designated time period as provided for in s. 39.4022.

2. A caregiver who objects to the department’s official position on the change in physical custody must notify the court and the department or community-based care lead agency of his or her objection and the intent to request an evidentiary hearing in writing in accordance with this section within 5 days after receiving notice of the department’s official position provided under subparagraph 1. The transition of the child to the new caregiver may not begin before the expiration of the 5-day period within which the current caregiver may object.

3. Upon the department or community-based care lead agency receiving written notice of the caregiver’s objection, the change to the child’s physical custody must be placed in abeyance and the child may not be transitioned to a new physical placement without a court order, unless there is an emergency situation as defined in s. 39.4022(2)(b).

4. Within 7 days after receiving written notice from the caregiver, the court must conduct an initial case status hearing, at which time the court must do all of the following:

a. Grant party status to the current caregiver who is seeking permanent custody and has maintained physical custody of that child for at least 9 continuous months for the limited purpose of filing a motion for a hearing on the objection and presenting evidence pursuant to this subsection.

b. Advise the caregiver of his or her right to retain counsel for purposes of the evidentiary hearing.

c. Appoint a court-selected neutral and independent licensed professional with expertise in the science and research of child-parent bonding.

(d) The court must conduct the evidentiary hearing and provide a written order of its findings regarding the placement that is in the best interest of the child no later than 90 days after the date the caregiver provided written notice to the court under this subsection. The court must provide its written order to the department or community-based care lead agency, the caregiver, and the prospective caregiver. The party status granted to the current caregiver under sub-subparagraph (c)4.a. terminates upon the written order by the court, or upon the 90-day time limit established in this paragraph, whichever occurs first.

(e) If the court orders that the physical custody of the child change from the current caregiver after the evidentiary hearing, the department or community-based care lead agency must implement the appropriate transition plan developed in accordance with ss. 39.4022 and 39.4023 or as ordered by the court.

(4) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall review the conditions for return and determine whether the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.

(5) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child who is placed in the custody of a parent should be reunited with the other parent upon a finding that the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home of the other parent with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child, the standard shall be that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child would not be endangered by reunification and that reunification would be in the best interest of the child.

(6) In cases in which the issue before the court is whether to place a child in out-of-home care after the child was placed in the child’s own home with an in-home safety plan or the child was reunified with a parent or caregiver with an in-home safety plan, the court must consider, at a minimum, the following factors in making its determination whether to place the child in out-of-home care:

(a) The circumstances that caused the child’s dependency and other subsequently identified issues.

(b) The length of time the child has been placed in the home with an in-home safety plan.

(d) The level of increase, if any, in the parent’s or caregiver’s protective capacities since the child’s placement in the home based on the length of time the child has been placed in the home.

The court shall additionally evaluate the child’s permanency goal and change the permanency goal as needed if doing so would be in the best interests of the child. If the court changes the permanency goal, the case plan must be amended pursuant to s. 39.6013(5).

(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a child’s case manager, an authorized agent of the department, or a law enforcement officer may, at any time, remove a child from a court-ordered placement and take the child into custody if the court-ordered caregiver of the child requests immediate removal of the child from the home. Additionally, an authorized agent of the department or a law enforcement officer may, at any time, remove a child from a court-ordered placement and take the child into custody if there is probable cause as required under s. 39.401(1)(b).

(a) If, at the time of the removal, the child was not placed in licensed care in the department’s custody, the department must file a motion to modify placement within 1 business day after the child is taken into custody. The court must then set a hearing within 24 hours after the motion is filed unless all of the parties and the current caregiver agree to the change of placement. At the hearing, the court must determine if the department has established probable cause to support the immediate removal of the child from his or her current placement. The court may base its determination on a sworn petition or affidavit or on testimony and may hear all relevant and material evidence, including oral or written reports, to the extent of their probative value, even if such evidence would not be competent evidence at an adjudicatory hearing.

(b) If the court finds that the department did not establish probable cause to support the removal of the child from his or her current placement, the court must enter an order that the child be returned to such placement. An order by the court to return the child to his or her current placement does not preclude a party from filing a subsequent motion pursuant to subsection (2).

(c) If the current caregiver admits that a change of placement is needed or the department establishes probable cause to support removal of the child, the court must enter an order changing the placement of the child. The new placement for the child must meet the home study criteria in this chapter if the child is not placed in foster care.

(d) If the court finds probable cause and modifies the child’s placement, the court must conduct a hearing pursuant to subsection (2) or subsection (3), unless such hearing is waived by all parties and the caregiver.

History.—s. 25, ch. 2000-139; s. 14, ch. 2006-86; s. 3, ch. 2013-21; s. 13, ch. 2017-151; s. 6, ch. 2019-128; s. 5, ch. 2020-138; s. 10, ch. 2021-169; s. 19, ch. 2024-70; s. 4, ch. 2024-177.

F.S. 39.522 on Google Scholar

F.S. 39.522 on CourtListener

Amendments to 39.522

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 39.522

Total Results: 54

CD v. Department of Children and Families

974 So. 2d 495, 2008 WL 244912

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2008 | Docket: 1366667

Cited 9 times | Published

360 (Fla. 1st DCA *500 2002)). Similarly, section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial

JJ v. Department of Children and Families

886 So. 2d 1046

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2004 | Docket: 1721279

Cited 8 times | Published

being returned to the child's parent." See also § 39.522(2). While the trial court's conclusion that the

RH v. Department of Children and Families

948 So. 2d 898, 2007 WL 419350

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2007 | Docket: 1773954

Cited 6 times | Published

children would be endangered by their return. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). See also D.G. v. Dep't

DS v. Department of Children and Families

900 So. 2d 628, 2005 WL 623284

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 18, 2005 | Docket: 1514194

Cited 6 times | Published

being returned to the child's parent. [11] Section 39.522(2) provides: (2) In cases where the issue

In Re Mv-B.

19 So. 3d 381, 2009 WL 1606545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2009 | Docket: 1164706

Cited 4 times | Published

custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522, and the grandparents cannot even demonstrate

Guardian Ad Litem Program v. RA

995 So. 2d 1083, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 19287, 2008 WL 4952580

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 21, 2008 | Docket: 1684356

Cited 4 times | Published

dependent child is the child's best interest. See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). In addition, section 39

EI v. Department of Children and Families

979 So. 2d 378, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 8063, 2008 WL 1734505

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 7, 2008 | Docket: 1714542

Cited 3 times | Published

trial court must address the factors listed in section 39.522(2), which are: (a) The compliance or noncompliance

Department of Children and Families v. TL

854 So. 2d 819, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13982, 2003 WL 22136255

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 17, 2003 | Docket: 1459985

Cited 3 times | Published

background check and home study had been completed. Section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2002), governs "postdisposition

Ljs v. Fla. Dept. of Children and Fam.

995 So. 2d 1151, 2008 WL 5101142

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2008 | Docket: 1285828

Cited 2 times | Published

reunification would be detrimental to the children. See § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2004); C.D., 974 So.2d at 500

GV v. Department of Children and Families

985 So. 2d 1243, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 11228, 2008 WL 2815537

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2008 | Docket: 1253927

Cited 2 times | Published

psycho-therapist strongly recommended reunification. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, provides that: In cases

Lf v. Dept. of Children & Family Services

837 So. 2d 1098, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1840

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2003 | Docket: 1527564

Cited 2 times | Published

order. [2] The parties argue as to whether section 39.522 applies, dealing with postdisposition changes

L.K. v. Department of Children & Family Services

39 So. 3d 1288, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 11261, 2010 WL 3023277

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 4, 2010 | Docket: 1213904

Cited 1 times | Published

conceded error based on the plain language of section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides

MM v. Department of Children and Families

29 So. 3d 1200, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 3620, 2010 WL 979589

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2010 | Docket: 2573274

Cited 1 times | Published

detrimental to the children, as required by section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes. This court has repeatedly

LM v. Department of Children and Families

20 So. 3d 408, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 15543, 2009 WL 3271344

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 2009 | Docket: 1640114

Cited 1 times | Published

determined based on their best interests. See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Additionally, section 39

C.V. v. Department of Children & Family Services

19 So. 3d 381, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7256

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 10, 2009 | Docket: 60254606

Cited 1 times | Published

custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522, and the grandparents cannot even demonstrate

RJ v. Guardian Ad Litem Program

993 So. 2d 176, 2008 WL 4753731

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 2008 | Docket: 2515261

Cited 1 times | Published

would be in the child's best interest, see section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and the evidence

KF v. Department of Children and Families

963 So. 2d 947, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13832, 2007 WL 2481042

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 5, 2007 | Docket: 1328307

Cited 1 times | Published

was in the best interests of the children. Section 39.522, Florida Statutes, governing postdisposition

Guardian Ad Litem Program v. DCF

936 So. 2d 1183, 2006 WL 2451684

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2006 | Docket: 1650986

Cited 1 times | Published

evaluate how best to provide for the care of M.Z. See § 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2005). We affirm, as well, because

HG v. Department of Children & Families

916 So. 2d 1006, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 1426, 2006 WL 12944

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2006 | Docket: 1659719

Cited 1 times | Published

by the return of the child to the home." *1009 § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). Section 39.01(68) defines

SL v. Department of Children and Families

852 So. 2d 372, 2003 WL 21946441

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 15, 2003 | Docket: 1305833

Cited 1 times | Published

endangered by the return of the child to the home. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. Further, even if the stated rule

Guardian Ad Litem v. Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 26, 2025 | Docket: 69676095

Published

ordering placement of the child with the mother.” See § 39.522(6), Fla. Stat. (listing placement factors). The

Florida Department of Children and Families v. Foster Parents of K.J.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 19, 2025 | Docket: 69651964

Published

entitled to party status under subsection (3) of section 39.522, Florida Statutes. While the statute at issue

Department of Children & Families v. J.J., a Child, and the Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 27, 2024 | Docket: 69420041

Published

than a licensed shelter or foster home. See § 39.522; Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.G

In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2024 Legislation

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2024 | Docket: 69155443

Published

subdivision follows the procedure set out in section 39.522(7), Florida Statutes (2024), which was enacted

GUARDIAN AD LITEM STATEWIDE v. S. S. AND B. S., PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS, AND DEPT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 14, 2024 | Docket: 68249553

Published

Prospective Parents argue that pursuant to section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2023), the issue of intervention

K.N. and D.N. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 8, 2023 | Docket: 66795956

Published

R. Juv. P. 8.000. This includes MOP hearings. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2022); Fla. R. Jud. P. 8.345(a)

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2021 Fast-Track Report

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2022 | Docket: 63131091

Published

conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2021 Fast-Track Report

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Feb 3, 2022 | Docket: 62649858

Published

conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES v. M.D., THE MOTHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2021 | Docket: 59914671

Published

respondent M.D., from the mother’s home pursuant to section 39.522(4), Florida Statutes (2020), due to safety

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES v. M.D., THE MOTHER

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 18, 2021 | Docket: 59914671

Published

respondent M.D., from the mother’s home pursuant to section 39.522(4), Florida Statutes (2020), due to safety

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure – 2020 Fast-Track Report

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2020 | Docket: 18424845

Published

Relief), to address legislative changes made to section 39.522, Florida Statutes, by chapter 2020-138, section

Q.L., THE MOTHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 18, 2019 | Docket: 16211761

Published

whether a child should be reunited with a parent, section 39.522(2) provides: the court shall review

L.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families

274 So. 3d 556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2019 | Docket: 64718362

Published

not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3) ); see also J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams

L.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families

274 So. 3d 556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 25, 2019 | Docket: 64718363

Published

not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3) ); see also J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams

Y v. v. Dept. of Children and Families

271 So. 3d 1160

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2019 | Docket: 14909089

Published

is in the “best interest of the child.” See section 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). See also R.W. v

C.R. v. Dept. of Children and Families

253 So. 3d 97

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 8, 2018 | Docket: 7619142

Published

placement have not been “remedied to the 11 Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2017), provides as follows:

J. W. v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

249 So. 3d 764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 20, 2018 | Docket: 7225314

Published

court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.522.1 Thus, we also reverse the portion of the

K.C. v. Department of Children & Families

227 So. 3d 783

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2017 | Docket: 60278143

Published

be in the child’s best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse

K.C. v. DCF

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 16, 2017 | Docket: 6181270

Published

the child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse

E.N. v. Department of Children & Families

224 So. 3d 900, 2017 WL 3614134, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12006

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2017 | Docket: 6142198

Published

reunification would be in the child’s best interest. See § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also W.H., 109 So.3d

J.G. v. Department of Children & Families

220 So. 3d 555, 2017 WL 2562402, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8695

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 14, 2017 | Docket: 6073870

Published

for an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2017). The

State of Florida, Department of etc. v. M. A., Father of C.A., Minor Child

215 So. 3d 1276, 2017 WL 1322116, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4950

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 10, 2017 | Docket: 4670601

Published

Additionally, even without the ICPC requirement, section 39.522(1), requires compliance with “the home study

Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Department of Children & Families

143 So. 3d 1075, 2014 WL 3674049, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11394

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 25, 2014 | Docket: 390223

Published

environment. In response, DCF asserts that section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2013), while requiring

T.N.L. v. Department of Children & Families

132 So. 3d 319, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 589, 2014 WL 223001

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 22, 2014 | Docket: 60238421

Published

well-being would be endangered. She relies on section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which, at the

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure

123 So. 3d 1128, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 697, 2013 WL 5476883, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2139

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2013 | Docket: 60234859

Published

Stat.); eh.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat.); ch. 2013-107 (amending § 90.702

R.M. v. Department of Children & Families

114 So. 3d 392, 2013 WL 2221419, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8143

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 2013 | Docket: 60231889

Published

session. See Ch.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.522, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2013, adding

M.N. v. Department of Children & Families

120 So. 3d 3, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 19948, 2012 WL 5846288

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2012 | Docket: 60234105

Published

detrimental to the child. C.D., 974 So.2d at 500. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), suggests that

T.L. v. Department of Children & Families

98 So. 3d 785, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18101, 2012 WL 4900434

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2012 | Docket: 60312580

Published

supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: (2)

S.V.-R. v. Department of Children & Family Services

77 So. 3d 687, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17776, 2011 WL 5375047

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 9, 2011 | Docket: 60304754

Published

and further proceedings, because we find that section 39.522(2) was applicable, that neither DCF nor the

C.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services

73 So. 3d 320, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 16990, 2011 WL 5061545

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 26, 2011 | Docket: 2353239

Published

1151, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Additionally, section 39.522(2) requires that when a court considers whether

TS v. Department of Children and Families

992 So. 2d 299, 2008 WL 4361238

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 2008 | Docket: 1389078

Published

the best interest of the child standard under section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), instead of the

CB v. Department of Children and Families

975 So. 2d 1158, 2008 WL 611606

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 2008 | Docket: 1423499

Published

initiating a new dependency action, based upon section 39.522, Florida Statutes, which allows the court to

R.W. v. Department of Children & Families

909 So. 2d 402, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12664, 2005 WL 1943208

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2005 | Docket: 64840135

Published

reuniting a parent and a dependent child. See § 39.522(2) and § 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). However

E.B. v. Department of Children & Families

844 So. 2d 761, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6886, 2003 WL 21032050

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2003 | Docket: 64822751

Published

health of the child is endangered by reunification § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2002); C.F. v. Dep’t of Children