A.L. v. Department of Children & Families, 53 So. 3d 324

DCF sheltered A.L.’s four children after a domestic violence incident and sought placement with their father due to concerns mother might flee with them.
A guardian ad litem and counsel were appointed; the mother consented to the petition without admission, believing reunification was in the children’s best interests.
The court ordered custody with the father pending a home study, with supervision and services to the mother and children; a case plan was set on October 6, 2009, with June 16, 2010 completion.
Status reports through December 2009 indicated the mother was progressing, visits were unproblematic, and reunification remained the goal with the children thriving with the father.
At the March 11, 2010 hearing, the father requested termination of supervision and jurisdiction, contending the mother could not complete the plan by June 2010; the mother asked for nine months to complete.
The magistrate found substantial concerns about housing, finances, and mental health readiness, noted the daughter’s pregnancy, and concluded reunification would be detrimental if the mother did not complete the plan; the magistrate recommended terminating supervision and jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the permanency goal was properly stated under §39.621.	A.L. argues ‘maintain and strengthen’ is not a valid permanency goal under §39.621 and is ambiguous.	DCF contends ‘maintain and strengthen’ is equivalent to a valid goal or may be pursued concurrently with reunification.	Reversed; the goal was unclear and not properly aligned with statutory permanency goals.
Whether due process and reasonable opportunity to complete the case plan were afforded.	Mother asserts she deserved the full nine months to complete reunification tasks under the plan.	DCF asserts time is of the essence and that concurrent goals can apply, with possible amendment if needed.	Remanded to determine if an amendment to the permanency goal was necessary and assess the mother's compliance.
Whether termination of jurisdiction was appropriate given the procedural issues and the mother’s progress.	Mother contends termination was premature given substantial progress and potential for reunification with proper amendments.	Court maintained termination was warranted due to lack of full compliance and immigration/ housing concerns.	Reversed and remanded for further consideration of permanency amendment and compliance.

K.E. v. Department of Children & Families, 958 So.2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (substantial compliance with reunification-based plan warrants reunification absent detriment)
M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 29 So.3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (limits on time for reunification; consider amendment when noncompliance persists)
M.I. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 45 So.3d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (proper change of permanency goals when parent fails to comply)
Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. M.L., 984 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (due process considerations in dependency proceedings)
R.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 25 So.3d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (procedural requirements for modification in dependency cases)