Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ent guardianship under the facts of this case. Generally, a court should not consider permanent guardianship as a permanency option unless the court first “determines that reunification or adoption is not in the. best interest of the child.... ” § 39.6221(1), Fla....

...The statute specifies that adoption is the first option to be used after reunification. However, given the variety of situations that may exist in these cases, “[i]f a court determines that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child, the court may place the child in a permanent guardianship.... ” § 39.6221(1), Fla....

...n order of preference, are: (a) Reunification; (b) Adoption, if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed; (c) Permanent guardianship of a dependent child under s. 39.6221; (d) Permanent placement with a fit and willing relative under s....

...§§ 39.621(2)(a)-(e) (emphasis added). Only after the trial court determines that adoption or reunification would not be in the best interests of the child may DCF consider “some other arrangement.” - 20 - Section 39.6221, specifically states: “[i]f a court determines that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child, the court may place the child in a permanent guardianship with a relative or other adult approved by the court.” Id. § 39.6221(1). The Legislature has also made clear that “[t]ime is of the essence” in providing permanency for children requiring that, if possible, children should be placed in a permanent living situation within one year of coming into care. § 39.621(1), Fla....

...guardianship, so long as they are in a long-term placement and are not being harmed. When a person is appointed the permanent guardian of the child, the court retains jurisdiction over the case, and the permanency determination can be modified at any time upon court approval. See § 39.6221(5), Fla. Stat. (2016). A - 21 - permanent guardianship does not terminate the parent-child relationship. § 39.6221(6), Fla....

...ment of a child in a permanent guardianship requires a finding by the trial court that reunification or adoption is not in the best interests of the *1249 child, and that finding must be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. [1] § 39.6221(1), Fla....

...In light of this decision, the mother's argument concerning the vagueness of the visitation schedule is moot. However, since the issue may recur in the future, we note that the statute directs the trial court to "[s]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents." § 39.6221(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2007). Reversed. STEVENSON, MAY, JJ., and LABARGA, JORGE, Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Section 39.6221(2)(a) further instructs that the trial court, in its written order, shall "[l]ist the circumstances or reasons why the child's parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact." § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla....

...dings of the magistrate’s report and recommendation from the October 27, 2011, hearing; an order placing the child in a permanent guardianship and terminating protective services; and a separate order for the permanent guardian, issued pursuant to section 39.6221(3), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...ons to a magistrate’s report — the appellant did not waive a claim of error by failing to file exceptions to the general magistrate’s report). The mother also argues that the trial court’s order failed to make the proper findings pursuant to section 39.6221(2)(a)-(f)....

...2d DCA 2014); P.P. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 86 So. 3d 556, 559-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); T.H. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 928 So. 2d 1291, 1294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). For purposes of the proceedings on remand, we note that section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), requires the circuit court to "[s]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents." Here, the court's order specifies that K.B....

...ation upon determining that K.B. has achieved the sobriety and stability necessary to keep the child safe. However, it does not leave the frequency and nature of visitation to the guardian's complete discretion. Therefore, the order comports with section 39.6221(2)(c)....

...3d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding the permanent guardianship order that provided for visitation biweekly for an hour to an hour and a half "or at the discretion of the caregiver" did not comply with -2- section 39.6221(2)(c) because it placed complete discretion concerning the frequency and duration of visitation with the permanent guardian). Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and WALLACE, JJ., Concur....

...Ondriezek, Jacksonville; Hilary Reeves, Guardian Ad Litem Program, Green Cove Springs; Ward L. Metzger, Children's Legal Services, Jacksonville; and Kelley Schaeffer, *369 Guardian Ad Litem Program, Tavares, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. C.S. appeals an order placing her son, C.N., in permanent guardianship pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...unds for removing a child from a parent. The lower court ordered that the child be placed in permanent guardianship with his paternal grandparents. On appeal, the state concedes, and we agree, that the lower court's written order did not comply with section 39.6221(2), which requires case-specific findings....

...(2) The court shall approve a permanency goal for the child as provided by law choosing from the following options, listed in order of preference: (A) reunification; (B) adoption, if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed; (C) permanent guardianship of a dependent child under section 39.6221, Florida Statutes; (D) permanent placement with a fit and willing relative under section 39.6231, Florida Statutes; or (E) placement in another planned permanent living arrangement under section 39.6241, Florida Statutes....

...The Department of Children & Families concedes error as to the trial court's failure to make specific written findings explaining why reunification was not possible. We accept this concession of error as proper because written findings are required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...of Trustees v. Monk, 68 So.3d 316, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). With these *709 rigid requirements in mind, we consider the Department’s petition. This was a elosed dependency case; the trial court placed the child in a permanent guardianship pursuant to section 39.6221(1), Fla....

...ss and until a valid basis for changing the child’s placement is established in the record. See § 39.01(55), Fla. Stat. (2011) (stating that a “permanent guardianship of a dependent child ... is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining”); § 39.6221(5), Fla....

...The Father argues that the trial court erred in failing to make written findings explaining why reunification was not possible. The Department and the Guardian ad Litem concede error. We find these concessions to be proper because written findings are required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). Ordinarily, we would simply reverse and remand for the court to make the necessary written findings in compliance with section 39.6221(2)(a). However, both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem also concede that, even if the court had complied with section 39.6221(2)(a), competent, substantial evidence did not support A.M.'s placement in a permanent guardianship....

...Analysis We begin by noting that in its written order, the trial court was required to explain why reunification was not possible by either "referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child[ren] dependent or by making separate findings of fact[.]" § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla....

...children's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health, the trial court could again place the children into permanent guardianships. See J.H., 865 So.2d at 636. The trial court would then be required to comply with the dictates of section 39.6221(2)(a) and either refer to specific findings of fact from the adjudication of dependency or make separate findings of fact to support its ruling....

...Although the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's ruling, we must reverse and remand for the entry of an order containing factual findings regarding the issue of reunification sufficient to comply with the statutory mandate set forth in section 39.6221 of the Florida Statutes. Section 39.6221 of the Florida Statutes requires trial courts to set forth written findings to support any decision to order a child into a permanent guardianship arrangement. Among other things, the statute requires trial courts to explain why the parent is not fit to care for the child: 39.6221....

...tances or reasons why the child's parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact ... § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla....

...parents have not worked their case plan. They have not resolved the issues of domestic violence, stable housing or financial stability. Id. at 714. Before discussing the substantive issue raised on appeal, the Second District noted that, pursuant to section 39.6221 of the Florida Statutes, the trial court was required to support its conclusion that reunification with the mother was not possible by either referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating her children dependent or by making separate findings of fact....

...dianship. Although we conclude that the trial court’s decision to place the children in a permanent guardianship is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the order on appeal fads to contain or to reference the detailed findings required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012)....

...2d DCA 2009) (“[I]n its written order, the trial court was required to explain why reunification was not possible by either ‘referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the ehild[ren] dependent or by making separate findings of fact[.])’ ” (quoting § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla....

...1 As we stated in J.S., the trial court’s reference to “the circumstances from which the court previously based its findings that the children are dependent” is insufficient to comply with this requirement. Id. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended order that meets the requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a)....

...The court also found that D.N. was noncompliant with his case plan but noted that D.N. was "not able to work on his case plan tasks due to being incarcerated." On appeal, D.N. argues, and the Department concedes, that the written order fails to comply with section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), which requires the court to "[l]ist the circumstances or reasons why the child's parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of fact...

...tment of Children & Family Services (DCF), we look at whether the trial court considered and applied the factors set forth in the permanent guardianship statute. I.Z. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 967 So.2d 425, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2012), lists the factors that the trial court must consider in determining that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child and that a permanent guardianship is appropriate....

...s not possible because of the circumstances from which the court previously based its finding that the child is dependent in the order of adjudication.” The trial court also referenced that D.C. had not completed his case plan. This is inadequate. Section 39.6221(2)(a) allows the trial court to refer to specific findings of fact made in the dependency order or to make separate findings of fact....

...On remand, the trial court should reconsider whether DCF presented sufficient evidence to support the permanent guardianship. Id. D.C. also argues that the trial court’s visitation provision is nonspecific and runs afoul of statutory requirements. We have held that a nonspecific visitation requirement does not comply with section 39.6221(2)(c)....

...The visitation “shall occur on a schedule agreed by the parties and at a place agreed to by the parties.... Once recommended by the therapist, the visitation shall be supervised visitation at a minimum of once a month for a minimum of one hour.” This portion of the order does not necessarily violate section 39.6221(2)(c)....

guardianship fails to make the findings required by section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2015). We reverse and

...LABRIT, Judge.  R.T., the Father, appeals an order placing J.A.T., the Child, in a permanent guardianship and terminating the Department of Children and Families' supervision. Because the permanent guardianship order does not fully comply with section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2021), we reverse and remand for entry of an amended order. The Father first argues that the trial court's decision to place the Child in a permanent guardianship was not supported by competent substantial...

...to make specific findings of fact. We conclude that competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's decision to place the Child in a permanent guardianship. See A.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 136 So. 3d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). However, section 39.6221 requires that the written order "[l]ist the circumstances or reasons why the child's parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact." § 39.6221(2)(a) (emphasis added)....

...3d at 721. The Father next argues that the portion of the permanent guardianship order addressing the frequency of his visitation is insufficient. An order placing a child in a permanent guardianship must "[s]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents." § 39.6221(2)(c)....

...The visitation "shall occur on a schedule agreed [to] by the parties. . . . Once recommended by the therapist, the visitation shall be supervised visitation at a minimum of once a month for a minimum of one hour." This portion of the order does not necessarily violate section 39.6221(2)(c). 3 D.C., 118 So....

...om D.C. because it fails to specify a frequency of visitation. While an increase in the frequency of visitation can be determined with therapeutic input and the start of visitation can be delayed until a time that is therapeutically recommended, section 39.6221(2)(c) requires a permanent guardianship order to set a specific minimum frequency of visitation that is to be allowed once visitation begins. See, e.g., D.C., 118 So. 3d at 926. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended order that meets the requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a) and (2)(c)....

...that I.Z. had not substantially complied with the case plan given her by DCF and that permanent placement was in the child's best interest, while still allowing I.Z. to have supervised visitation with the child. We affirm the trial court's holding. Section 39.6221, Florida Statutes, controls the placement of a child in a permanent guardianship, and provides as follows: (1) If a court determines that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child, the court may place the chil...

...39.509; (e) Specify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her siblings; and (f) Require that the permanent guardian not return the child to the physical care and custody of the person from whom the child was removed without the approval of the court. § 39.6221(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. Once permanent guardianship has been established, the trial court shall "relieve [DCF] of the responsibility for supervising the placement of the child." § 39.6221(5), Fla....

...(ix) that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to immunity under section 768.28(9), Florida Statutes; (x) that a permanent guardianship shall be established for a dependent child pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes. - 20 -  (D) grant or deny the appointment of a receiver, or terminate or refuse to terminate a receivership; or (E) grant or d...

...guardianship without specific facts showing why the father was not fit to care for his daughters. It adjusted a visitation schedule for the father because of the permanent guardian’s relocation out of state. It is from this order that the father appeals. Section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that in a written order establishing a permanent guardianship, the court must “[l]ist the circumstances or reasons why the child’s parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact.” § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla....

...s inadequate under the statute. See, e.g., In re R.C., 118 So. 3d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); M.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 86 So. 3d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). The written order does not comply with the statutory requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014)....

...Analysis We begin by noting that in its written order, the trial court was required to explain why reunification was not possible by either “referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child[ren] dependent or by making separate findings of fact[.]” § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla....

...ldren’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health, the trial court could again place the children into permanent guardianships. See J.H., 865 So.2d at 636 . The trial court would then be required to comply with the dictates of section 39.6221(2)(a) and either refer to specific findings of fact from the adjudication of dependency or make separate findings of fact to support its ruling....

...4th DCA 2015). The child’s guardian ad litem concedes the circuit court erred as the department has argued, and that reversal is required for the circuit court to provide proper notice, conduct an evidentiary hearing, and make the findings required under section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2023), which governs a dependent child’s permanent guardianship....

...First, as the department argues and the guardian ad litem concedes, the circuit court erred in entering the permanent guardianship orders without sufficient notice and without conducting an evidentiary hearing to make the findings required under section 39.6221....

...be heard]. Otherwise, fundamental error occurs. Dep’t of Child[.] & Fam[s.] v. T.S., 154 So. 3d 1223[, 1226] (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Second, the circuit court lacked statutory authority to place the child in a permanent guardianship. Section 39.6221 authorizes the circuit court to place a dependent child in permanent guardianship under specific conditions: (1) If a court determines that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child, the court may...

...dependency file of the child with the clerk of the court. (f) The child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective permanent guardian, and such guardian has a strong commitment to permanently caring for the child. § 39.6221(1), Fla....

...(2023) (emphases added). Here, as the department’s initial brief submits: The [circuit] court placed the [c]hild in a [p]ermanent [g]uardianship at the same time it placed the [c]hild with the uncle. The [c]hild had not been in this placement for the preceding six (6) months[, as section 39.6221(1)(a) requires]. As of the … hearing [date], the [c]hild had only been with the uncle at most for about two weeks....

...or affirm that subsections (1)(b)-(f) were met. 4  Third, even if the circuit court properly had placed the child in a permanent guardianship, the court was not authorized to terminate its jurisdiction over the child. See § 39.6221(5), Fla....

...2d 437, 439 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).] Based on the foregoing, we reverse the four orders on appeal, and remand for reinstatement of protective supervision and consideration of the child’s placement and permanency following proper notice, an evidentiary hearing, and proper findings required under section 39.6221. We also conclude the circuit court may consider whether to permit the child to remain with his uncle in Ohio while the court resolves these issues and pending the ICPC process’s completion....

...that the father’s home fails to provide adequate sleeping arrangements as well. 3 the father both appealed to this court, and the cases were consolidated for all purposes on September 22, 2016. ANALYSIS Section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2016), entitled “Permanent guardianship of a dependent child,” provides, in pertinent part: (1) If a court determines that reunification or adoption is not in the best interest of the child, the co...

...appeals an order placing his two daughters, T.C. and R.B., in a permanent guardianship 1 and terminating the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services. The Department correctly concedes error because the order failed to contain written findings as required by section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2007). The Department also concedes that, even if the trial court’s order complied ■with section 39.6221(2), the evidence was insufficient to support the placement of the children in a permanent guardianship....

...(A) – (B) [No Change] (C) determine: (i) – (ix) [No Change] (x) that a permanent guardianship shall beis established for a dependent child pursuant tounder section 39.6221, Florida Statutes; (D) – (E) [No Change] (F) deny a motion that: (i) [No Change] (ii) asserts entitlement to immunity under section 768.28(...

failed to make any of the findings required by section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2024). See Dep’t of Child

...We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to provide findings as to why the permanent placement is established without adoption of the child to follow pursuant to section 39.621(6), Florida Statutes (2006); amend the judicial review order to be in compliance with section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2006); amend the judicial review order to reflect the amendment to the case plan; and withdraw the permanent placement of the child with the non-relative until the child has been in the placement for not less than the preceding six months pursuant to section 39.6221(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...The Department of Children and Families moved for rehearing, advising this Court that the final permanent guardianship order, which placed the child in a permanent guardianship, was not part of the record on appeal previously submitted to us. Based upon a review of the supplemented document which complies with section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2012), we grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion and affirm the final order....

...se and remand this case for the trial court to make specific findings of fact in its permanent guardianship order, stating the reasons why the child’s mother is not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible, as required under section 39.6221(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2016).

reunification is not possible, as required under section 39.6221(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2015).

...We find merit with the Father’s lack of written findings argument, and the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) concedes error. 1 In light of our holding that the order is deficient for lack of findings, we are unable to address *132 the Father’s remaining sufficiency of the evidence argument. Section 39.6221, Florida Statutes, provides that when a trial court places a minor child in a permanent guardianship; it must: (a) List the circumstances or reasons why the child’s parents are not fit to care for the cliild and why reunification is...

...’s health, safety and wellbeing,” and that “[rjeunification with the parent(s) at this time would be contrary to the welfare and not in the best interest of the children.” This 'generic language is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 39.6221....

...The order further fails to specify the frequency of the Father’s supervised visitation with the children. See In re Jr., 64 So.3d 1283 , 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DOA 2011) (reversing a permanent guardianship order because it failed to establish a specific visitation schedule in violation of section 39.6221(2)(c), and remanding for the court to delineate the frequency of the mother’s visitation). Therefore, we reverse and remand the permanent guardianship order for the trial court to make the necessary, specific written findings pursuant to section 39.6221, and to delineate the frequency of the Father’s supervised, visitation with the children....

..., or any other educational placement. See id. 2. See ch. 2018-45, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.6021(1), (5), Fla. Stat. effective July 1, 2018); ch. 2018-103, §§ 7-8, 9, 12, 33, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.6013, 39.621(5), 39.6221(1), 39.701(2)(d), Fla....

...guardianship order to state whether the child demonstrates a strong attachment to the prospective permanent guardian and whether the prospective permanent guardian demonstrates a strong commitment to permanently caring for the child. See ch. 2018-103, § 9 (adding paragraph (f) to § 39.6221(1), Fla....

...Jr., and N.R., in a permanent guardianship with their maternal grandmother. We affirm all aspects of the order except as to the visitation schedule between S.W-R. and the children. On that single point, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), requires the circuit court’s written order to “[sjpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” This plain language mandates that the court es...

...cific visitation schedule rather than leaving visitation to the discretion of either of the parties. See R.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 55 So.3d 685, 685-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). An order that does not comply with the requirements of section 39.6221 must be reversed....

...t it leaves the nature and frequency of any visitation between S.WR. and the children to the maternal grandmother’s unfettered discretion and remand for the trial court to delineate S.W-R.’s visitation rights with her children in accordance with section 39.6221(2)(c)....

...But see cf. In re H.T., 204 So. 3d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (stating guardianship order that awarded parent one hour per week of supervised visitation, with additional supervised and unsupervised visitation at guardian’s discretion, comported with section 39.6221(2)(c) because it did not leave frequency and nature of parent’s visitation to guardian’s “complete discretion”). We reverse the Final Judgment and Timesharing Plan to the extent it delegates the decision regarding addit...

guardianships for dependent children pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes. According to the Committee’s

established for a dependent child pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes.; (D) grant or deny the

...orders are limited to those that: (A) - (B) [No Change] (C) determine: (i) - (ix) [No Change] (x) that a permanent guardianship shall be established for a dependent child pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes.; (D) grant or deny the appointment of a receiver, or terminate or refuse to terminate a receivership; or (E) grant or deny a motion to disqualify counsel.; (F)...

...Id. at 559 . In this case, the documents that the Department filed the day before the hearing do not even claim to be a permanency review, and even the judge did not understand it was intended to be a permanency hearing until the end of the hearing. Section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2012), authorizes a court to establish a permanent guardianship of a dependent child. But the statute clearly requires the trial court to first make a reasoned decision that reunification or adoption are not in the best interest of the child. See § 39.6221(1). Despite the language of the order, the court did not make that determination in this case and does not appear to have had a factual basis to have made such a determination. Subsection 39.6221(2) and rule 8.425(d) contain detailed requirements for the written order establishing a permanent guardianship....

...Rule 8.425(d)(7) emphasizes the specific findings required when the permanent guardians *757 are not relatives. A form order to assist judges in granting a permanent guardianship may be appropriate but not at the omission of the information that the statute requires the trial court to specify. See § 39.6221(2); see also J.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Subsection 39.6221(5) explains that the entry of a permanent guardianship requires the court to “discontinue regular review hearings” and it relieves the Department “of the responsibility for supervising the placement of the child.” The court does retain jurisdiction over the case to modify the order of guardianship....

NORTHCUTT, Judge. C.H.C., the mother of three minor children, challenges the circuit court’s decision to place the children in a permanent guardianship with an adult relative. See § 39.6221, Fla....

...We conclude that competent substantial evidence supported the circuit court’s ruling, and we affirm it without further discussion. However, the court’s order did not “[sjpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between” the children and their mother, as mandated by statute. See § 39.6221(2)(c)....

...called one witness, N.L., the mother, who testified that she did not oppose. The Department objected that the court could not lawfully place H.L. in a permanent guardianship with D.L. because H.L. had not been placed with D.L. for the length of time required by section 39.6221(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2024)....

...his son and placed J.C. in the permanent guardianship of his paternal aunt. Although the trial court’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the final order itself does not contain or reference the detailed findings required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2012). See, e.g., R.T., Sr. v. Dep’t. of Children and Families, 27 So.3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). The order also fails to comply with section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), which requires the trial court to “[s]pecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” See, e.g., In re J.L.R., Jr., 64 So.3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). 1 Accordingly, we reverse and re *700 mand for entry of an amended order that meets the requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes....

...Although the Department highlights that the trial court ordered four hours per week of visitation at the hearing on the matter, the same is not reflected in the permanent guardianship order. Rather, the final order simply states that visitation shall be solely at the discretion of the guardian, which is insufficient under section 39.6221(2)(c), as explained in In re J.L.R., Jr.

...dependent and placing her in a permanent guardianship with her stepfather. Because competent, substantial evidence supported the order finding A.N. dependent, we affirm that order without further discussion. We also affirm the circuit court’s order placing A.N. in a permanent guardianship with her stepfather. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2009). However, over R.N.’s objection, the circuit court failed to “[sjpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between” R.N. and his daughter in the guardianship order as required by section 39.6221(2)(c)....

...Instead, the court ordered that R.N. and the permanent guardian develop and agree on a visitation and contact schedule. This resolution was not only unworkable given the animosity between R.N. and the permanent guardian, but also violated the clear mandate of section 39.6221(2)(c)....

...On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. David J. Oberliesen, Judge. February 21, 2024 PER CURIAM. T.A.S. is the father of R.A.S. In 2020, R.A.S. was placed in a permanent guardianship at the conclusion of a dependency case. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2020). T.A.S. was ordered to have no contact with R.A.S, but his parental rights were not terminated. See § 39.6221(6), Fla....

...(ix) that, as a matter of law, a settlement agreement is unenforceable, is set aside, or never existed; or (x) that a permanent guardianship shall be established for a dependent child pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes. - 20 -  (D) grant or deny the appointment of a receiver, or terminate or refuse to terminate a receivership; or (E) grant or d...

compels adoption over permanent guardianship. See § 39.6221(1), Fla. Stat. (2021) (stating that trial court

PER CURIAM. S.K., the mother, appeals an order placing her daughters, C.H. and C.H., in permanent guardianships and terminating the supervision of the Florida Department of Children and Families (“the Department”) pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2010)....

...First, the mother argues, and the Department concedes, that the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order of permanent guardianship. Second, she argues that the trial court’s written order does not comply with section 39.6221(2)(a) because it does not contain case-specific findings explaining why reunification was not possible....

...ing the children in permanent guardianships. C.S, 41 So.3d at 369 (trial court’s order must be supported by competent, substantial evidence). The mother additionally argues, and we agree, that the trial court’s written order does not comply with section 39.6221(2)(a), which requires the trial court to make case-specific findings explaining why reunification is not possible, for two reasons....

...eunification is not possible because of the circumstances from which the court previously based its finding that the children are dependent in the order of adjudication.” (emphasis added). This clause fails to comport with the statutory mandate of section 39.6221(2)(a) because it “makes only a general reference to the circumstances from which the court previously based its findings that the children are dependent.” In re J.S., 18 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla....

...In this case, the circuit court’s order was in response to DCF filing a case plan for a permanent guardianship and the order was entered after a hearing with notice and an opportunity for all parties to be heard. We agree with appellant that the June 5 order does not contain the findings of fact required by section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2015)....

...The court also found that D.N. was non-compliant with his case plan but noted that D.N. was “not able to work on his case plan tasks due to being incarcerated.” On appeal, D.N. argues, and the Department concedes, that the written order fails to comply with section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), which requires the court to “[l]ist the circumstances or reasons why the child’s parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of...

...of a child. A permanency determination in this case, on the other hand, would be governed by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.425 (“Permanency Hearings”), section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanency determination by the court”), and section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanent guardianship of a dependent child”). The trial court’s order scheduled the subject hearing as a “judicial review,” and the Department’s JRSSR went so far as to deny that this was a permanency review....

...Dep’t of Children & Families, 928 So.2d 414, 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (same). An order that creates a permanent guardianship is a type of permanency order that may be modified as set forth in Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.430. In re J.B., 130 So.3d 753, 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (citing section 39.6221(5), Florida Statutes, and explaining that the creation of a permanent guardianship requires the court to discontinue regular review hearings and relieves DCF of the responsibility to supervise the child’s placement)....

...The trial court concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to remain with the grandparents while granting liberal unsupervised visitation to the Father. On appeal, the Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider and properly apply the factors for permanency set forth in section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2012), and failing to set forth specific reasons why he is not fit to care for the children or why reunification is not possible....

...much of the remaining need for counseling with the children was a result of the court-created extended period of not knowing where they would be placed rather than as a result of any fear of the placement itself. 4 Moreover, the findings required by section 39.6221(2), upon which the trial court apparently based the permanency decision, do not operate in a vacuum....

...The Father argues that the trial court erred in failing to make written findings explaining why reunification was not possible. The Department and the Guardian ad Litem concede error. We find these concessions to be proper because written findings are required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008). Ordinarily, we would simply reverse and remand for the court to make the necessary written findings in compliance with section 39.6221(2)(a). However, both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem also concede that, even if the court had complied with section 39.6221(2)(a), competent, substantial evidence did not support A.M.’s placement in a permanent guardianship....

...Barrett, Jacksonville, for Appellant. David F. Elder, State of Florida, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. In this juvenile dependency case, appellant seeks review of an order placing his son in a permanent guardianship pursuant to section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2006). The Department of Children and Family Services correctly concedes error because the requirements of section 39.6221 were not met. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with section 39.6221....

...f the minor child’s older half-sister and her half-sister’s boyfriend. Although the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s ruling, we agree with the mother the written order is insufficient to meet the requirements of section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2011), in two respects. When a trial court places a minor child in a permanent guardianship in lieu of reunification or adoption, section 39.6221(2) of the Florida Statutes requires the trial court’s written order to: (a) List the circumstances or reasons why the child’s parents are not fit to care for the child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making separate findings of fact; [and] [[Image here]] *1150 (c) Specify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.... § 39.6221(2), Fla....

...The visitation shall occur on a schedule agreed by the parties and at a place agreed by the parties. The frequency of the visitation shall be: The trial court added “at the custodians’ sole discretion.” The Department concedes the trial court’s order does not meet the statutory requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a)....

...rth in the trial court’s dependency order nor contain separate findings of fact regarding the issue of reunification”); see also In re J.S., 18 So.3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). However, the Department contends the mother waived her right as to section 39.6221(2)(c) because of a desire to be alleviated from any responsibilities relating to the minor child....

...iver of visitation by the mother. Accordingly, the trial court’s order placing the frequency of visitation at the custodians’ sole discretion was error. See In re J.L.R., Jr., 64 So.3d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding the plain language of section 39.6221(2)(c) mandates a trial court to establish a specific visitation schedule rather than leaving visitation to the discretion of either of the parties). Reversed and remanded for entry of an order in compliance with the requirements of section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes.

...parental rights. In September 2016, rather than going forward with the termination of parental rights, the court entered its order placing the two children not fathered by M.A. into permanent guardianship with the maternal grandmother. See § 39.6221, Fla....