Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 753 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 753 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 753

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLIII
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Chapter 753
SUPERVISED VISITATION
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 753
CHAPTER 753
SUPERVISED VISITATION
753.01 Definitions.
753.02 Clearinghouse responsibilities and authority.
753.03 Standards for supervised visitation and supervised exchange programs.
753.04 Interim minimum standards for supervised visitation programs.
753.05 Referrals involving child sexual abuse.
753.01 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the term:
(1) “Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation” or “clearinghouse” means the entity within the Institute for Family Violence Studies in the School of Social Work of the Florida State University, which serves as a statewide resource on supervised visitation issues by providing technical assistance, training, and research.
(2) “Department” means the Department of Children and Families.
(3) “Exchange monitoring” means supervision of movement of a child from one parent to the other parent at the start of the visit and back to the first parent at the end of the visit.
(4) “Supervised visitation program” means a program created to offer structured contact between a parent or caregiver and one or more children in the presence of a third person responsible for observing and ensuring the safety of those involved. Supervised visitation programs may also include exchange monitoring of children who are participating in court-ordered visitation programs or exchange monitoring where there has been mutual consent between parties for the purposes of facilitating a visitation.
History.—s. 6, ch. 2007-109; s. 37, ch. 2008-61; s. 292, ch. 2014-19.
753.02 Clearinghouse responsibilities and authority.—
(1) The clearinghouse shall have the following responsibilities, subject to the availability of resources:
(a) To develop standards for supervised visitation programs in order to ensure both the quality of each program and the safety of children and families using program services.
(b) To serve as a clearinghouse on resources and research of supervised visitation programs.
(c) To provide technical assistance and other support services to existing and emerging supervised visitation programs.
(d) To compile a directory of state-supervised visitation programs containing referral information.
(e) To formulate a newsletter for supervised visitation programs.
(f) To organize workshops and conferences that address issues and concerns of supervised visitation programs.
(g) To compile data on the use of supervised visitation programs.
(2) The clearinghouse may apply for grants and accept private contributions.
History.—s. 7, ch. 2007-109.
753.03 Standards for supervised visitation and supervised exchange programs.—
(1) Within existing funds from the department, the clearinghouse shall develop standards for supervised visitation programs in order to ensure the safety and quality of each program. Standards must be uniform for all the programs and must address the purposes, policies, standards of practice, program content, security measures, qualifications of providers, training standards, credentials and background screening requirements of staff, information to be provided to the court, and data collection for supervised visitation programs.
(2) The clearinghouse shall use an advisory board to assist in developing the standards. The advisory board must include:
(a) Two members of the executive board of the state chapter of the Supervised Visitation Network, appointed by the president of the state chapter of the Supervised Visitation Network.
(b) A representative of the Office of the State Courts Administrator, appointed by the State Courts Administrator.
(c) A representative of the department, appointed by the secretary of the department.
(d) A representative of a local law enforcement agency, appointed by the executive director of the Florida Sheriffs Association.
(e) A circuit court judge who presides over domestic violence proceedings, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
(f) A circuit court judge who presides over dependency proceedings, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
(g) Two representatives of a supervised visitation program, appointed by the director of the clearinghouse.
(h) A representative of the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, appointed by the executive director of the office.
(3) The clearinghouse, in consultation with the advisory board, shall develop criteria and procedures for approving and rejecting certification applications for and monitoring compliance with the certification of a supervised visitation program. The clearinghouse shall recommend the process for phasing in the implementation of the standards and certification procedures and the criteria for distributing funds to eligible programs and designating the state entity that should certify and monitor the supervised visitation programs.
History.—s. 8, ch. 2007-109; s. 50, ch. 2011-213; s. 82, ch. 2012-5; s. 13, ch. 2020-6.
753.04 Interim minimum standards for supervised visitation programs.—
(1) Until the standards for supervised visitation and supervised exchange programs are developed pursuant to this chapter and a certification and monitoring process is fully implemented, each supervised visitation program must have an agreement with the court and comply with the Minimum Standards for Supervised Visitation Programs Agreement adopted by the Supreme Court on November 17, 1999. Under this order, a supervised visitation program shall enter into an agreement with the circuit court or circuit courts within the geographic jurisdiction of the program attesting to the willingness of the program to comply with the Supreme Court’s standards.
(2) Until the standards for supervised visitation and supervised exchange programs are completed and a certification and monitoring process is fully implemented, a supervised visitation program may not receive grant funds for access and visitation under 42 U.S.C. s. 669b unless the program provides documentation to the state agency administering the grant verifying that the program has entered into an agreement with the circuit court as required under subsection (1). This subsection does not obligate the state agency administering the grant to certify a program’s compliance with the Minimum Standards for Supervised Visitation Programs Agreement.
History.—s. 9, ch. 2007-109.
753.05 Referrals involving child sexual abuse.—
(1) Any supervised visitation program that wishes to accept referrals involving child sexual abuse must have an agreement with the court and a current affidavit of compliance on file with the chief judge of the circuit in which the program is located affirming that the program has agreed to comply with the minimum standards contained in an administrative order issued by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on November 17, 1999, and provided the program has a written agreement with the court and with the department that contains policies and guidelines specifically related to child sexual abuse.
(2) The agreement must include provisions for the following:
(a) Program staff who supervise visits or other contact must have specific training in child sexual abuse provided through the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation documented in personnel files.
(b) The program must have protocols for obtaining background material on the family prior to the initiation of services.
(c) The program must accept only those child sexual abuse referrals for which staff have the requisite background material, training, and security in place to safely monitor contact.
(d) The program must decline referrals of child sexual abuse cases when staff lack necessary training or education, when background material has not been received, or when lack of security may allow revictimization of the child.
(e) The program must suspend visits in cases when the child appears to be traumatized by the visits or when the individual visiting or having other contact engages in inappropriate behavior or violates program rules.
History.—s. 10, ch. 2007-109.

F.S. 753 on Google Scholar

F.S. 753 on Casetext

Amendments to 753


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 753
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 753.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 753

Total Results: 20

State of Florida v. Jean Paul Yanes-Blanco

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-17

Snippet: exclusion of aliens. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). The Supreme Court has recognized

Regino Mendoza v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-15

Snippet: ________________ No. 3D23-0753 Lower Tribunal No. F20-11173A

Etiany Maria Eloi Zufi v. Robin Gabriel Stockton and Ron Kendall Masonry, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-08

Snippet: considered inadmissible hearsay. See McElroy v. Perry, 753 So. 2d 121, 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The defendants

Derek Rosa v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2025-01-02

Snippet: hearing); H.L.D., Jr. v. State, 83 So. 3d 750, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“[A] judge may not independently

Geico General Insurance Company v. Benjamin Tsao and Brooke Tsao

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-06

Snippet: motor vehicle. Young v. Progressive Se. Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 80, 83 (Fla. 2000). This statutory underinsured

Arturo J. Pulles v. Michael Onorato

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-04

Snippet: by this court in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hidalgo, 753 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The court’s discretion

Andwele R. Williams v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-04

Snippet: conviction as the defendant’s); Guion v. State, 753 So. 2d 628, 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (finding a name

Anthawn Ragan, Jr. v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-30

Snippet: § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2023); Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000). See also Wright, 317 So.

Leo L. Boatman v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-17

Snippet: phases of the capital trial.” Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29, 43 (Fla. 2000). We have no occasion here

The Florida Bar v. Curtis S. Alva

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-17

Snippet: 759, 765 (Fla. 2016) (citing Fla. Bar v. Temmer, 753 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. 1999)). In reviewing a referee’s

Kahleb Newkirk v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-16

Snippet: 1135 (Fla. 1986); Dennis v. State, 817 So. 2d 741, 753 (Fla. 2002); Zuluaga v. State, 915 So. 2d 1251, 1255

Celebrity Actor's Camp, Inc., Winebarger v. McLaughlin, Bredbrenner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-09-18

Snippet: judgment was pending. See Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So. 2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("A trial

Loran Cole v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-23

Snippet: Asay, 224 So. 3d at 700 (quoting Sims v. State, 753 So. 2d 66, 70 (Fla. 2000)). So, the rule also prescribes

Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-21

Snippet: judicial labor”); see also Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that an order construing

Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-21

Snippet: judicial labor”); see also Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that an order construing

Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-21

Snippet: judicial labor”); see also Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that an order construing

Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-21

Snippet: judicial labor”); see also Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that an order construing

Tami Molina v. Moises Molina

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-07

Snippet: (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The trial court’s misconduct

USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Emergency Physicians, Inc. d/b/a Emergency Resources Group

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-26

Snippet: result of the accident. Emergency Physicians charged $753 for its services and submitted a bill to USAA seeking

Nisbany Surit-Garcias v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-07-10

Snippet: moderate injuries is not an easy task.” Poole v. State, 753 So. 2d 698, 698–99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This court