A.A. v. Department of Children & Families, 147 So. 3d 621

In 2011 the children were adjudicated dependent; in 2012 the trial court entered a permanency order placing them in permanent guardianship with their stepfather and permitting supervised visitation by the mother (Petitioner).
In October 2013 the mother filed a sworn motion to reopen and to modify the permanency order seeking reunification; the trial court reopened the case and ordered a psychological evaluation.
In February 2014 the trial court denied the mother’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing; the mother moved for rehearing arguing the absence of a hearing, which was denied.
The psychological evaluation indicated the mother’s mental illness had not significantly improved; the guardian ad litem recommended closing the case.
The mother had submitted a sworn motion with exhibits detailing compliance with the case plan and steps taken toward reunification, but the trial court’s order did not address many statutory factors required by statute.
The mother sought certiorari review alleging denial of due process and that the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Fla. Stat.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a motion to modify a permanency order for reunification	Petitioner: statute and rule require a hearing to allow the parent to present evidence to show modification won’t endanger the child	Respondent: statute does not expressly mandate an evidentiary hearing, so none was required	Court: Trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing; denying one violated due process and the parent’s burden to demonstrate safety and well‑being under §39.621(9) and Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.430
Whether the trial court’s order must contain written findings addressing the statutory factors in §39.621(10)	Petitioner: order failed to address required factors (case plan compliance, cause of dependency/resolution, placement stability, child/custodian preferences, guardian ad litem recommendation) and thus departed from essential requirements of law	Respondent: (implicit) reliance on evaluation and recommendations sufficed; order’s recital of the evaluation was adequate	Court: Order must include written factual findings addressing the enumerated factors; failure to do so is reversible error requiring quash and remand

Dep’t of Children & Families v. W.H., 109 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (requiring hearing and findings when parent seeks modification of permanency placement)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (same principle regarding procedural protections on modification motions)
Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.A., 980 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (discussing need for appropriate procedure when reopening permanency placements)
Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Honeycutt, 609 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1992) (explaining limits on appeal of nonfinal orders in dependency proceedings)
In re R.B., 890 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (procedural posture and reviewability in dependency contexts)
C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 975 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (discussing review and standards in child dependency matters)
In re J.H., 979 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (recognizing certiorari as a remedy for departures from essential requirements of law in dependency proceedings)
A.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 957 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (same)