W.K. , M.K. & GUARDIAN AD LITEM v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
230 So. 3d 905
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Infant was sheltered two months after birth and placed with foster parents; at hearing child was 18 months old and bonded to foster parents.
- Mother executed a valid surrender and consent to adopt with Adoption by Shepherd Care (ASC); father surrendered to Department of Children and Families (DCF).
- ASC intervened and moved to transfer custody to the mother's chosen prospective adoptive parents; DCF did not oppose; the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) opposed.
- ASC presented a positive home study, adoption specialist testimony, and an expert on early-childhood attachment who testified an 18-month-old can form a secure new attachment and the move posed minimal risk.
- Foster parents wished to adopt but had no approved home study and had taken no adoption steps; GAL presented bonding expert testimony that removal would be detrimental.
- Trial court granted ASC’s motion, made detailed findings addressing statutory best‑interest factors and ordered a transition plan; foster parents and the GAL appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do foster parents have standing to appeal the custody-transfer order? | Foster parents claim their strong bond with the child gives them standing to challenge removal. | DCF: foster parents were participants, not parties, and lacked statutory right to appeal. | Foster parents lack standing; appeal dismissed. |
| Was the transfer of custody an abuse of discretion? | GAL: removal from bonded foster home is contrary to child’s best interests and detrimental. | ASC/DCF: trial court’s findings (home study, permanency, parent’s choice) supported transfer; GAL conceded prospective parents appropriate. | No abuse of discretion; competent substantial evidence supports transfer. |
| Does a child’s established bond to current foster parents override other best‑interest factors? | GAL argued bond should prevent removal. | ASC: bonding expert said child could reattach; statutory factors include parental choice and permanency. | Bonding is a factor but does not override others; court properly weighed all factors. |
| What is the role of the birth parent’s adoption choice? | GAL implied court should select placement best for child, even over parent’s choice. | ASC/Statute: parent’s choice is a statutory factor; valid consent is enforceable and court must order transfer if adoptive parents are qualified and in child’s best interest. | Mother’s choice is a recognized statutory factor; court correctly gave it effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 981 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (foster parents are participants, not automatically parties with appellate standing)
- D.C. v. J.M., 133 So.3d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (same principle regarding foster-parent status)
- R.L. v. W.G., 147 So.3d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (foster parents lacked right to intervene to prevent a placement change)
- M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 906 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (custody-transfer orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; standard is competent substantial evidence)
- In re S.N.W., 912 So.2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (best-interest analysis focuses on appropriateness of parent’s chosen adoptive placement, not whether it is the court’s top choice)
- Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distrib., 442 So.2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (failure to raise an issue on appeal waives it)