Department of Children & Families v. C.T.
144 So. 3d 684
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Children were adjudicated dependent and placed with maternal grandmother while parents pursued reunification.
- Father relocated to Maryland during dependency to attend inpatient and outpatient drug treatment and complied with his case plan.
- At a status hearing the trial court found reunification likely and ordered immediate reunification with the father in Maryland over the Department's objection.
- The Department objected because the ICPC process (home study and receiving-state acceptance) had not been completed and the agency could not monitor the out-of-state home.
- The trial court relied on Department of Children & Families v. L.G., holding the ICPC does not apply when children are placed with out-of-state parents, and found no safety concerns, so ordered placement without ICPC compliance.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the ICPC applies when a court has jurisdiction and places children with an out-of-state parent and reversed the trial court to the extent it held the ICPC inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICPC applies when a court with jurisdiction places children with an out-of-state parent | Department: ICPC applies because the court assumed responsibility for placement while state intervention continues | Trial court/father: L.G. means ICPC does not apply to placements with out-of-state parents | ICPC applies when the court has jurisdiction and has assumed responsibility to determine residence while intervention continues |
| Whether L.G. precludes ICPC application to court-ordered placements with parents | Department: L.G. was narrowly about custodial parents who never lost custody; does not bar ICPC where court assumed custody | Defense: L.G. interpreted to exempt parental relocations from ICPC | Court: L.G. was misread; subsequent cases show ICPC applies when court has legal custody/placement authority |
| Whether the State may send children out-of-state without ICPC home study/acceptance | Department: Sending without ICPC violates Article III conditions and is negligent when court has custody | Defense: Immediate reunification permissible absent safety concerns and under perceived L.G. rule | Court: Sending children without complying with ICPC conditions was improper when the court had assumed placement authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Children & Families v. L.G., 801 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (interpreting Article VIII(a) exception where a custodial parent with lawful custody relocates)
- Department of Children & Families v. S.D., 921 So.2d 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (clarifying ICPC applies when court places a child with an out-of-state parent)
- H.P. v. Department of Children & Families, 838 So.2d 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding ICPC applies when court has jurisdiction and placement resembles foster-care status)
- Department of Children & Families v. Benway, 745 So.2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (reasoning courts should not relinquish court-placed children to out-of-state parents without assurance of appropriate care)