Annotations, Discussions, Cases:
Cases Citing Statute 39.621
Total Results: 62
974 So. 2d 495, 2008 WL 244912
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 31, 2008 | Docket: 1366667
Cited 9 times | Published
...d longevity of the child's placement; (d) The preferences of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and understanding to express a preference; (e) The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem § 39.621(10), Fla....
...case was initiated, without regard to the parent's progress as overcoming those issues, is improper. If a trial court could properly base its decision concerning reunification solely on issues existing at the time the dependency case was initiated, section 39.621(10)(b) and all of the provisions regarding case plan development and compliance would be meaningless....
...fication. Such consideration is necessary if the trial court is to give effect to the legislatively mandated goal of remedying families' problems to achieve safe reunification. In this case, the trial court failed to follow the mandatory language of section 39.621(10)....
...Second, the tasks associated with the long-term relalive placement goal in this case are no different from those that were associated with the goal of reunification. Third, the trial court is required to consider at each permanency hearing whether the goal of the case plan remains appropriate. See § 39.621(4)(a)....
950 So. 2d 1264, 2007 WL 776546
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2007 | Docket: 1752001
Cited 7 times | Published
...Amy Beauchaine, Orlando, for Appellee, Participant/Custodian. Charles D. Peters, Orlando, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families. *1265 PLEUS, C.J. B.L. and M.L., parents of L.L., a minor, appeal from an order permanently committing L.L. to the long-term custody of a relative pursuant to sections 39.621, et seq., Florida Statutes....
...According to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (2006), it is the intent of the Florida Legislature to achieve permanency for every child in the dependency system. § 39.001(1)(h). When it is determined that *1266 reunification with either parent is inappropriate, the court must make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1)....
947 So. 2d 1212, 2007 WL 188243
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2007 | Docket: 1376526
Cited 4 times | Published
...mily is achieved within one year of her placement into foster care. § 39.001(1)(h). The Florida Legislature *1219 has also decreed that "[i]f a child will not be reunited with a parent, adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option." § 39.621(6) (emphasis added)....
946 So. 2d 1214, 2006 WL 3821847
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 2006 | Docket: 1771119
Cited 4 times | Published
...It is the intent of the Florida Legislature to achieve permanency for every child in the dependency system. § 39.001(1)(h). When it is determined that reunification with either parent is inappropriate, the court must make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1). When reunification is not an option, adoption is the preferred permanency option. § 39.621(2). However, if adoption is not in the child's best interests, the court may consider other permanency options, such as guardianship pursuant to chapter 744, Florida Statutes, long-term custody, long-term licensed custody, and independent living. § 39.621(3)....
...Therefore, permanency was achieved. The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and is not to be disturbed absent a finding that the circumstances of the permanent placement are no longer in the best interests of the child. § 39.621(3)....
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
...The statute cited by this court was section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, which deals with post-disposition changes in custody in active dependency cases. On its motion for clarification, the Department asks this court to clarify its opinion by substituting section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, as it is the controlling statute in this case as it deals with postclosure motions to reactivate. We agree with the Department's assertion and correct the scrivener's error in the previously issued opinion. We withdraw the section of the opinion referencing section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, and substitute section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, in its place. This substitution does not change the result of the case as the six factors to be considered by the court as per our opinion are found in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes....
933 So. 2d 57, 2006 WL 1373243
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 2006 | Docket: 1712103
Cited 3 times | Published
...t search to determine the parent's whereabouts. See § 39.503(5), Fla. Stat. Finally, before making a permanency determination, such as a chapter 63 adoption, the dependency court must determine reunification with either parent is inappropriate. See § 39.621(1), Fla....
1 So. 3d 305, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 188, 2009 WL 80429
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2009 | Docket: 1654030
Cited 3 times | Published
...e future to the discretion of the custodial father. In fact, because her parental rights have not been terminated, and as the order otherwise states, she retains the unqualified ability to seek a modification or elimination of any restrictions under section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes (2008). [2] Certiorari denied; order amended. NOTES [1] "If the Father later feels the child is ready for contact [with] the mother he may get the child therapy and request the court address such issue at such time." [2] Section 39.621(9) provides: The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by the court that the circumstances of the permanency placement are no longer in the best interest of the child....
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
...rounds. See C.D. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that trial court's finding of detriment to the child was "not based on any specific findings, and therefore, [was] not reasonably objective"). Further, section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, directs the trial court to consider the following six factors in deciding the parent's motion for reunification: (a) The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan; (b) The circumstances which c...
...lacement; (d) The preferences of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and understanding to express a preference. (e) The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem, if one has been appointed. § 39.621(10), Fla....
54 So. 3d 632, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2445
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 24, 2011 | Docket: 2512004
Cited 2 times | Published
...In this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court's conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child....
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
...Permanency in a relative placement shall be by adoption, long-term custody, or guardianship. First, there was no finding in any of the orders that the mother was unfit. Second, it appears that "permanency status" with the stepfather is not available for N.R. under the statutory scheme. Section 39.621 provides: (1) When the court has determined that reunification with either parent is not appropriate, then the court must make a permanency determination for the child....
995 So. 2d 1151, 2008 WL 5101142
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 5, 2008 | Docket: 1285828
Cited 2 times | Published
...longevity of the child's placement; (d) The preferences of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and understanding to express a preference; (e) The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem. § 39.621(10), Fla....
...Thus, the trial court improperly relied on the magistrate's deficient order to conclude that returning the children to the mother would endanger their safety and well-being. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to make detailed factual findings pursuant to section 39.621(10)....
207 So. 3d 1000, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 19324
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 30, 2016 | Docket: 63631915
Cited 2 times | Published
right to permanency, in direct conflict with section 39.621. Id. at 178. Accordingly, our court reversed
45 So. 3d 878, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13383, 2010 WL 3488828
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 8, 2010 | Docket: 2401447
Cited 1 times | Published
...he approval of the case plan for: .... (b) The child's need for permanency, taking into consideration the child's age and developmental needs; (c) The failure of a party to substantially comply with a task in the original case plan.... Additionally, section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2009) addresses the amendment of case plan goals at the permanency hearing: "The purpose of the permanency hearing is to determine ... whether modifying the current goal is in the best interest of the child." § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The plain language of sections 39.6013 and 39.621 makes clear that a trial court may change the case plan goals....
...In determining whether termination of parental rights is necessary to protect a child from serious future harm, a court may take into account all relevant evidence, including evidence of past parent-child contact. Id. The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in determining the permanency goal, as section 39.621(5) prescribes....
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
...We reverse and remand both orders because the order on permanency review neglects to make adequate findings on L.M.'s substantial compliance with DCF's case plan, and the order terminating protective supervision neglects to address the six parental reunification factors set forth in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2009)....
...substantially complied with the case plan. We note that if on remand the trial court determines that both parents substantially complied with the case plan, custody of the children would be determined based on their best interests. See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Additionally, section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2009), mandates that six factors "be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order on the motion [by a parent for reunification]." The trial court's order reopening this case in response to T.S.'s letter addressed these six factors....
...sion are devoid of the preferences of the children, the recommendation of the current custodian, or the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, we also reverse and remand for the *410 trial court to consider and address all six factors contained in section 39.621(10)....
969 So. 2d 1049, 2007 WL 2608520
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2007 | Docket: 1403819
Cited 1 times | Published
...The adoption statutes are intended "to provide to all children who can benefit by it a permanent family life[.]" § 63.022(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). Further, in the context of a child's placement in the dependency system, adoption is preferable to guardianship. § 39.621(2), Fla....
267 So. 3d 430
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 20, 2019 | Docket: 14752826
Cited 1 times | Published
1st DCA 2012) (statutory interpretation of section 39.621 is reviewed de novo). Applying de novo review
972 So. 2d 290, 2008 WL 161308
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 18, 2008 | Docket: 2561280
Cited 1 times | Published
...ldren and Family Services' supervision; and (3) retained jurisdiction. We affirm but write only to point out that the Father, who is incarcerated, is mistaken in concluding that the trial court's order essentially terminates his parental rights. See § 39.621(9), Fla....
183 So. 3d 1177, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 436
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 13, 2016 | Docket: 3027776
Cited 1 times | Published
...The failure to make statutorily-mandated findings in
termination of parental rights proceedings is reversible error. Cf. L.M. v.
Dep’t of Children & Families, 20 So. 3d 408, 409-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
(reversing and remanding for trial court to consider and address all six
factors of section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, which “mandates that [the]
six factors ‘be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order
on the motion [by a parent for reunification].’”).
Furthermore, competent substantial evidence...
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 2023 | Docket: 67836463
Published
remains in foster care longer than 1 year.”); § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Time is of the essence
17 So. 3d 878, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13777
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 2009 | Docket: 60249257
Published
adequacy of the findings of fact in the order: Section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2008), delineates certain
969 So. 2d 1049, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14239
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 12, 2007 | Docket: 64853264
Published
system, adoption is preferable to guardianship. § 39.621(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The order here granting
147 So. 3d 621, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14107
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2014 | Docket: 1185243
Published
...evidentiary hearing
before denying the motion for modification. Petitioner asserts that, as a result, she
was denied her due process right to present evidence and testimony in support of
her motion. We agree. Once a permanency order is in place, section 39.621(9),
2
Florida Statutes (2014), places the burden on the parent seeking reunification or
increased contact with the child:
The permanency placement is intended to continue until the...
...See also, Dep’t of Children and
Families v. R.A., 980 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
3
Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that the trial court’s order denying
modification fails to contain the findings of fact required by section 39.621(10),
Florida Statutes (2014), which provides:
The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent
for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the
decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health
of the child....
...and indicated that the guardian ad litem recommended closing the case.1
1 In her sworn motion for modification and reunification, Petitioner describes a
variety of actions she took to comply with her reunification case plan and attached
seven supporting exhibits. See § 39.621(10)(a)....
...The motion also: details the steps Petitioner has taken to
4
The combined failures to hold an evidentiary hearing and to make written
factual findings addressing the requisite factors enumerated in section 39.621(10),
constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material
injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.2 W.H., 109 So. 3d at 1270.
We therefore grant the petition, quash the order under review and remand
this cause to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and render an order in
compliance with section 39.621 (9) and (10), Florida Statutes.
obtain and maintain stable employment and housing; describes the circumstances
which initially resulted in the children’s dependency and how those circumstances
have been resolved; and avers that Petitioner’s children and the current custodian
agree with the modification sought by the motion. See § 39.621(10)(b), (c), (d)
and (e)....
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
...and permanent placement with the Father, that both parents had substantially complied with their case plans, and that it would be in the Child's best interests to remain in the long-term custody of the Father. The Mother timely appealed both orders. Section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child....
...See L.K. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 39 So.3d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). *323 Here, the order denying the Mother's motion did not include any of the required findings under either statute. It included neither the mandatory factors in section 39.621(10) nor the requisite finding under section 39.522(2) that reunification would endanger the child. It is therefore facially deficient. The order granting the Department's motion is also facially deficient. The order does not include findings on three of the five [2] factors required under section 39.621(10)....
...Under these circumstances, we must reverse the orders on appeal and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must determine whether reunification with the Mother would endanger the child and must consider and address all applicable factors enumerated in section 39.621(10)....
969 So. 2d 491, 2007 WL 3407778
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 16, 2007 | Docket: 1560031
Published
...Shortly after this court's affirmance, the mother filed a motion to reopen the case and a supplemental petition to modify. The trial court denied the motion to reopen, *493 finding that the mother's allegations were legally insufficient. We agree. A long-term relative custody order is considered an order of permanency. § 39.621(2)(d), Fla....
...That section required the parent to (1) demonstrate a material change in circumstances, and (2) establish that the return of the child to the parent would be in the child's best interest. [1] Effective July 1, 2006, section 39.622 was repealed. Newly enacted section 39.621(9) provides that a permanent placement is not to be modified unless the circumstances of the permanent placement are no longer in the child's best interest....
...the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the dependency case should be reopened and whether there should be a modification of the order. At the hearing, the parent must demonstrate that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the modification. § 39.621(9), Fla....
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2017 | Docket: 6223862
Published
cites to the provisions of Florida Statute section 39.621(10)1 and Department of Children & Families
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 9, 2025 | Docket: 69844249
Published
not been emancipated by order of the court”); § 39.621(10), Fla. Stat. (stating that “permanency placement
14 So. 3d 1041, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6959, 2009 WL 1425981
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 2009 | Docket: 1650658
Published
...a prospective adoptive household. The trial court rejected the concept that adoption by a third party would be preferable because of the "significant and deep relationship between the child and [his grandmother]." Reviewing the options available in section 39.621(2), [1] the court determined that the goal of the case plan should be changed to placement with a fit and willing relative....
933 So. 2d 57, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8011
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 22, 2006 | Docket: 64845699
Published
reunification with either parent is inappropriate. See § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. Clearly, the identity of a child’s
239 So. 3d 1266
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 16, 2018 | Docket: 6336222
Published
before the hearing on court's approval); § 39.621(3)(a) ("At least 3 business days before
12 So. 3d 309, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 8555, 2009 WL 1766681
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2009 | Docket: 2580436
Published
...n, factual findings as to why reunification would not be in the best interests of her child. She appeals. We reverse. In E.I. v. Department of Children and Families, 979 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we held that a court is obligated to comply with section 39.621(10), requiring the trial court to address and include in the written findings of fact the following six factors: (a) compliance or noncompliance with the case plan; (b) whether the circumstances causing the dependency have been resolve...
...a preference; (e) recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) recommendation of any guardian ad litem. 979 So.2d at 379. Even when it is not an abuse of discretion to deny reunification, we will reverse the order and remand for compliance with section 39.621(10) if the order fails to explicitly address the six factors....
...Dep't of Children and Families, 974 So.2d 495, 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that when a trial court makes a conclusory finding that reunification is not in the best interest of the child, instead of documenting detailed factual findings as required by § 39.621(10), appellate courts *311 should reverse the order and remand for application of the correct law and entry of appropriate factual findings)....
960 So. 2d 836, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10375
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2007 | Docket: 64851514
Published
jurisdiction over T.F. In 2006, the legislature added section 39.621(9). It provides: (9) The permanency placement
960 So. 2d 836, 2007 WL 1932032
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 2007 | Docket: 1404885
Published
...The trial court may elect to retain jurisdiction over a child even after protective supervision has been terminated, until the child reaches the age of majority. See § 39.013, Fla. Stat. (2006). The trial court elected to retain jurisdiction over T.F. In 2006, the legislature added section 39.621(9)....
249 So. 3d 1175
Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 2018 | Docket: 7471971
Published
2018-103, § 8, Laws of Fla. (adding paragraph (d) to § 39.621(5), Fla. Stat. (2017) ). Finally, new subdivision
170 So. 3d 840, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9933, 2015 WL 4077501
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 1, 2015 | Docket: 2670237
Published
...Dep’t of
Children & Family Servs., 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); F.E. v. Dep’t of
Children & Families, 1 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Because an order
terminating supervision does not necessarily end a dependency proceeding, see §§
39.521, 39.621, Fla....
...There is ample evidence in the record to support this
decision.
We do agree with the father however, that the trial court departed from the
essential requirements of law by restricting decisions concerning his future contact
with his children solely to their discretion. Section 39.621(9) of the Florida
Statutes affords the father the unqualified ability to return to the dependency court
to seek modification or elimination of any court ordered restrictions on the father’s
visitation rights....
...a practical matter, impact the
father’s future contacts and relationship with them, the dependency court has a
non-delegable duty to consider any motion for modification or for increased
contact filed by the father in the future. Id.; see also §39.621, Fla....
947 So. 2d 1212
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 26, 2007 | Docket: 64848781
Published
chapter 63, is the primary permanency option.” § 39.621(6) (emphasis added). Ultimately, if the adoption
130 So. 3d 753, 2014 WL 258743
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 2014 | Docket: 60237879
Published
Sixth Circuit when the Department did not obey section 39.621(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011). See P.P., 86
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2024 | Docket: 68268881
Published
the child was in permanent placement. See § 39.621(7), Fla. Stat. (listing permanent guardianship
946 So. 2d 1214, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 21783
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 2006 | Docket: 64848625
Published
make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1). When reunification is not an option, adoption
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2024 | Docket: 69021746
Published
permanency goals in dependency cases” set forth in section 39.621(3), Florida Statutes. Id. at 781. The
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 25, 2021 | Docket: 60290991
Published
Juvenile Procedure 8.425 (“Permanency Hearings”), section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanency determination
8 So. 3d 474, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3827
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2009 | Docket: 60305491
Published
and we consider the appeal on the merits. Section 39.621(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), allows adoption
8 So. 3d 474, 2009 WL 1139239
District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 29, 2009 | Docket: 1654481
Published
...surrenders once she receives a written order. If that were the case, and if her consent to surrender the child is reversed on appeal, her current appeal would be relevant. Therefore, this issue is not moot, and we consider the appeal on the merits. Section 39.621(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), allows adoption as a permanency goal option only "if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed." Here, the Department and the Guardian both concede error because a petition for termination of the Mother's parental rights was not filed....
