State, Department of Children & Families v. Interest of B.D.
102 So. 3d 707
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Trial court placed B.D. in permanent guardianship with a maternal cousin; protective supervision ended mid-2011.
- Mother filed May 1, 2012 to reopen dependency case for custody/visitation modification; Department requested a full evidentiary hearing and clarified sufficiency of allegations.
- Trial court granted reopening June 21, 2012 without holding a hearing or detailing findings of fact.
- Department sought certiorari; petition granted, order quashed, and remand for proceedings under chapter 39, Florida Statutes (2011).
- Court explains certiorari standards and reliance on R.A. to require proper notice, evidence, and findings addressing the child’s best interests.
- Court emphasizes permanency safeguards, the timing of permanency, and the need for an evidentiary hearing with explicit findings on best interests upon any modification of permanency placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court departed from essential requirements of law by reopening without a hearing or findings | Department argued statutory safeguards require an evidentiary hearing and explicit findings | Mother contends motion to reopen should suffice; department objections were insufficient | Yes; order quashed for lack of hearing and findings under statutes and rules |
| Whether the statutory and rule-based safeguards for reopening a dependency case were satisfied | Department contends §39.621(9)-(10) and Rule 8.430 require a hearing and findings | Mother relies on the court’s prior permanency order and procedural posture | No; safeguards not satisfied; remand for evidentiary hearing and proper findings |
| Whether certiorari relief is appropriate to correct the procedural defect and protect the child’s best interests | Department seeks immediate relief to prevent harm and illegitimate alteration of permanency | Not explicitly stated; focus on statutory compliance | Yes; certiorari granted and order quashed with remand for proper proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V., Int'l, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2001) (certiorari standards exclude mere legal error; threshold injuries matter)
- Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129 (Fla. 2011) (certiorari framework; material injury thresholds apply)
- Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (defines material injury and lack of adequate remedy on direct appeal)
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (certiorari considerations; depart from essential requirements)
- B.Y. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 2004) (statutory interpretation; supports de novo review of certain statutes)
- R.A., 980 So.2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (remedial ordering of protections when child’s welfare at stake; requires proper notice and hearings)