A.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services
113 So. 3d 77
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Child E.G-S. was removed from parental custody due to alleged maternal abuse; dependency petition filed against A.S. after parents’ divorce; father J.G. not alleged to have abused; mother began reunification case plan; after trial, court found dependency and later placed child with nonoffending father and terminated DCF jurisdiction and supervision; appeal challenged the termination of jurisdiction but disposition placement was upheld; court reversed part of disposition and remanded for continued jurisdiction if mother proceeds with case plan
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by terminating jurisdiction while reunification was still being pursued | A.S. argued she was diligently working on the case plan and should have opportunity to complete it | DCF asserted termination could occur when nonoffending parent has complied or is not yet time-barred | Partially granted; due process requires evidentiary hearing before terminating jurisdiction when parent is pursuing reunification |
| Whether the court should have proceeded under subsection 39.521(3)(b)(2) to keep jurisdiction while mother completed the plan | Court should allow continuation of jurisdiction to support completion of reunification | Dispositional option allowing termination was permissible if non-detrimental to child | Remand to pursue 39.521(3)(b)(2) with evidentiary hearing if termination is reconsidered |
| Whether the disposition order properly placed E.G-S. with the father without prematurely amending the reunification goal | Termination of jurisdiction prior to plan completion effectively amended reunification goal | Statutory option permitted if nonoffending parent is suitable | Affirmed in part; reversed to the extent it terminated jurisdiction; remand with continued jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 29 So.3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (limits when to terminate after substantial compliance with a reunification plan)
- A.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 53 So.3d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (due process in dependency cases; evidentiary hearing needed for plan amendments)
- P.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 86 So.3d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (evidentiary hearing required when permanent placement at issue)
- T.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 946 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (section 39.521(3)(b)(2) option; reunification consideration)
- K.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 958 So.2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (due process requires hearing before amending case plan; de facto amendment concerns)
- R.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 948 So.2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (cites need for proper due process in modifications)