The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 39
PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO CHILDREN

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 39.522

39.522 Postdisposition change of custody.—

(1) The court may change the temporary legal custody or the conditions of protective supervision at a postdisposition hearing, without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing.

(2)(a) At any time before a child is residing in the permanent placement approved at the permanency hearing, a child who has been placed in the child’s own home under the protective supervision of an authorized agent of the department, in the home of a relative, in the home of a legal custodian, or in some other place may be brought before the court by the department or by any other interested person, upon the filing of a motion alleging a need for a change in the conditions of protective supervision or the placement. If any party or the current caregiver denies the need for a change, the court shall hear all parties in person or by counsel, or both.

(b) Upon the admission of a need for a change or after such hearing, the court shall enter an order changing the placement, modifying the conditions of protective supervision, or continuing the conditions of protective supervision as ordered. The standard for changing custody of the child shall be the best interests of the child. When determining whether a change of legal custody or placement is in the best interests of the child, the court shall consider the factors listed in s. 39.01375 and the report filed by the multidisciplinary team, if applicable, unless the change of custody or placement is made pursuant to s. 63.082(6). The court shall also consider the priority of placements established under s. 39.4021 when making a decision regarding the best interest of the child in out-of-home care.

(c) If the child is not placed in foster care, the new placement for the child must meet the home study criteria and court approval under this chapter.

(3)(a) For purposes of this subsection, the term “change in physical custody” means a change by the department or community-based care lead agency to the child’s physical residential address, regardless of whether such change requires a court order to change the legal custody of the child. However, this term does not include a change in placement made pursuant to s. 63.082(6).

(b)1. In a hearing on the change of physical custody under this section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to remain permanently in his or her current physical placement if:

a. The child has been in the same safe and stable placement for 9 consecutive months or more;

b. Reunification is not a permanency option for the child;

c. The caregiver is able, willing, and eligible for consideration as an adoptive parent or permanent custodian for the child;

d. The caregiver is not requesting the change in physical placement; and

e. The change in physical placement being sought is not to reunify the child with his or her parent or sibling or transition the child from a safe and stable nonrelative caregiver to a safe and stable relative caregiver.

2. In order to rebut the presumption established in this paragraph, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the change in physical custody to determine if the change in placement is in the best interest of the child. As part of the evidentiary hearing, the court must consider competent and substantial evidence and testimony related to the factors enumerated in s. 39.01375 and any other evidence deemed relevant to a determination of placement, including evidence from a court-selected neutral and independent licensed professional with expertise in the science and research of child-parent bonding.

3. This presumption may not be rebutted solely by the expressed wishes of a biological parent, a biological relative, or a caregiver of a sibling of the child.

(c)1. The department or community-based care lead agency must notify a current caregiver who has been in the physical custody placement for at least 9 consecutive months and who meets all the established criteria in paragraph (b) of an intent to change the physical custody of the child, and a multidisciplinary team staffing must be held in accordance with ss. 39.4022 and 39.4023 at least 21 days before the intended date for the child’s change in physical custody, unless there is an emergency situation as defined in s. 39.4022(2)(b). If there is not a unanimous consensus decision reached by the multidisciplinary team, the department’s official position must be provided to the parties within the designated time period as provided for in s. 39.4022.

2. A caregiver who objects to the department’s official position on the change in physical custody must notify the court and the department or community-based care lead agency of his or her objection and the intent to request an evidentiary hearing in writing in accordance with this section within 5 days after receiving notice of the department’s official position provided under subparagraph 1. The transition of the child to the new caregiver may not begin before the expiration of the 5-day period within which the current caregiver may object.

3. Upon the department or community-based care lead agency receiving written notice of the caregiver’s objection, the change to the child’s physical custody must be placed in abeyance and the child may not be transitioned to a new physical placement without a court order, unless there is an emergency situation as defined in s. 39.4022(2)(b).

4. Within 7 days after receiving written notice from the caregiver, the court must conduct an initial case status hearing, at which time the court must:

a. Grant party status to the current caregiver who is seeking permanent custody and has maintained physical custody of that child for at least 9 continuous months for the limited purpose of filing a motion for a hearing on the objection and presenting evidence pursuant to this subsection;

b. Appoint an attorney for the child who is the subject of the permanent custody proceeding, in addition to the guardian ad litem, if one is appointed;

c. Advise the caregiver of his or her right to retain counsel for purposes of the evidentiary hearing; and

d. Appoint a court-selected neutral and independent licensed professional with expertise in the science and research of child-parent bonding.

(d) The court must conduct the evidentiary hearing and provide a written order of its findings regarding the placement that is in the best interest of the child no later than 90 days after the date the caregiver provided written notice to the court under this subsection. The court must provide its written order to the department or community-based care lead agency, the caregiver, and the prospective caregiver. The party status granted to the current caregiver under sub-subparagraph (c)4.a. terminates upon the written order by the court, or upon the 90-day time limit established in this paragraph, whichever occurs first.

(e) If the court orders that the physical custody of the child change from the current caregiver after the evidentiary hearing, the department or community-based care lead agency must implement the appropriate transition plan developed in accordance with ss. 39.4022 and 39.4023 or as ordered by the court.

(4) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall review the conditions for return and determine whether the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.

(5) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child who is placed in the custody of a parent should be reunited with the other parent upon a finding that the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home of the other parent with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child, the standard shall be that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child would not be endangered by reunification and that reunification would be in the best interest of the child.

(6) In cases in which the issue before the court is whether to place a child in out-of-home care after the child was placed in the child’s own home with an in-home safety plan or the child was reunified with a parent or caregiver with an in-home safety plan, the court must consider, at a minimum, the following factors in making its determination whether to place the child in out-of-home care:

(a) The circumstances that caused the child’s dependency and other subsequently identified issues.

(b) The length of time the child has been placed in the home with an in-home safety plan.

(d) The level of increase, if any, in the parent’s or caregiver’s protective capacities since the child’s placement in the home based on the length of time the child has been placed in the home.

The court shall additionally evaluate the child’s permanency goal and change the permanency goal as needed if doing so would be in the best interests of the child. If the court changes the permanency goal, the case plan must be amended pursuant to s. 39.6013(5).

History.—s. 25, ch. 2000-139; s. 14, ch. 2006-86; s. 3, ch. 2013-21; s. 13, ch. 2017-151; s. 6, ch. 2019-128; s. 5, ch. 2020-138; s. 10, ch. 2021-169.

F.S. 39.522 on Google Scholar

F.S. 39.522 on Casetext

Amendments to 39.522

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 39.522

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 39.522.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

L. S. L. S. M. a v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 274 So. 3d 556 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See §§ 39.522(3), 39.621(11), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; K.C. v. . . . with case plan, would either endanger child or not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522 . . .

Y. V. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 271 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See section 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). See also R.W. v. . . .

C. R. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 253 So. 3d 97 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522 . . . the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522 . . . not be detrimental to the child's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health." § 39.522 . . . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2017), provides as follows: In cases where the issue before the . . .

IN INTEREST OF S. E. a J. W. v., 249 So. 3d 764 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . reunification of the mother with the child, the circuit court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.522 . . .

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE- FAST- TRACK REPORT, 235 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 2018)

. . . (amending §§ 39.013(2), 39.402(8)(c)j 39.5Q7(7)(b), 39.521(l)(a), 39.522(2), (3), 39.6035(4), 39,801( . . .

B. F. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 237 So. 3d 390 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under § 39.522 . . .

K. C. J. C. a v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 227 So. 3d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . with Mother would either endanger the child or not be in the child’s best interest pursuant to section 39.522 . . .

IN INTEREST OF I. N. a E. N. v. Ad K. O., 224 So. 3d 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also W.H., 109 So.3d at 1270. . . . The version of section 39.522(3) applicable for our review in this case provided: In cases where the . . . However, the 2013 amendment to section 39.522, which added subsection (3), elevated the best-interest . . . The court did not apply or consider the standard set forth in section 39.522(3): “the standard shall . . . Effective July 1, 2017, the text of section 39.522(3) has been amended. . . .

J. G. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 220 So. 3d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . petition, quash. the order under review, and remand for an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522 . . . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2017), provides: In cases where the issue before the court is whether . . . Further, section 39.522(3) requires the trial court to determine whether the minor child should nonetheless . . . remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522 . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, v. M. A. M. R. A. C. A., 215 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . See §§ 39.521(3)(b), 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Additionally, even without the ICPC requirement, section 39.522(1), requires compliance with “the home . . .

In J. S. a Ad v. D. B. W. S., 143 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . In response, DCF asserts that section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2013), while requiring the circuit . . . Section 39.522(1) provides that “[t]he standard for changing custody of the child shall be the best interest . . .

T. N. L. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 132 So. 3d 319 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . She relies on section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which, at the time of the reunification hearing . . . The Department points out that section 39.522 was amended after the hearing to add a third subsection . . . Application of the (“Older”) 2012 Version of Section 39.522 The relevant statute in effect at the time . . . Of important and historical note is this court’s recognition that even when applying section 39.522(2 . . . Even so, section 39.522(2) still required the trial court to grant a motion for reunification absent . . .

In AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, 123 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 2013)

. . . (creating § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat.); ch. 2013-107 (amending § 90.702, Fla. . . .

R. M. R. M. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 114 So. 3d 392 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . (amending § 39.522, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2013, adding subsection (3), to provide that . . .

M. N. N. N. E. N. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 120 So. 3d 3 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), suggests that when a parent requests reunification and has . . .

T. L. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 98 So. 3d 785 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: (2) In cases where the issue before the court is . . .

S. V. R. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,, 77 So. 3d 687 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . applicability of different and apparently inconsistent statutory provisions relating to reunification, sections 39.522 . . . the case for a restoration of the status quo and further proceedings, because we find that section 39.522 . . . In such a circumstance, the controlling standard is set forth in section 39.522(2): In cases where the . . . the mother) until the trial court considers whether reunification will “endanger” KB. under section 39.522 . . . Section 39.522 is captioned "Postdisposition change of custody.” . . .

In G. M. a C. M. v., 73 So. 3d 320 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Additionally, section 39.522(2) requires that when a court considers whether a child should be reunited . . . included neither the mandatory factors in section 39.621(10) nor the requisite finding under section 39.522 . . .

In A. F. a L. K. v., 39 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Family Services and the Guardian ad Li-tem have conceded error based on the plain language of section 39.522 . . .

M. M. B. D. S. D. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . her case plan or whether reunification would be detrimental to the children, as required by section 39.522 . . .

L. M. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 20 So. 3d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . .

In M. V. B. a C. V. M. P. B. P. v. Ad, 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . This case actually involves an attempt to change custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522 . . .

T. R. J. T. J. T. R. F. P. T. v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN FAMILIES,, 13 So. 3d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Procedure 9.315(b), and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with sections 39.522 . . .

P. S. B. S. R. S. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 4 So. 3d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See §§ 39.521 (3)(b), 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

L. J. S. J. S. A. S. W. S. v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 995 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2004); C.D., 974 So.2d at 500. . . .

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, v. R. A. J. K. A. a, 995 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . .

R. J. D. J. a v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM,, 993 So. 2d 176 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . this case, the trial court found that the placement would be in the child’s best interest, see section 39.522 . . .

T. S. C. J. a v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 992 So. 2d 299 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . the essential requirements of law by applying the best interest of the child standard under section 39.522 . . . Department under section 39.521(3)(b), and instead employed the best interest standard under section 39.522 . . .

G. V. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 985 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, provides that: In cases where the issue before the court is whether . . . endangerment to the children’s “safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.” § 39.522 . . .

E. I. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 979 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . The trial court must address the factors listed in section 39.522(2), which are: (a) The compliance or . . . recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem.... § 39.522 . . . s orders denying E.I.’s motions to reopen the case lists the factors to be considered under section 39.522 . . . The statute cited by this court was section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, which deals with post-disposition . . . We withdraw the section of the opinion referencing section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, and substitute . . .

C. B. J. B. K. B. C. B. B. B. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 975 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . children removed from the mother’s custody, without initiating a new dependency action, based upon section 39.522 . . .

C. D. B. G. C. D. A. D. a v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 974 So. 2d 495 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Similarly, section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court to “determine whether . . . reunification, it must demonstrate thorough consideration of the two factors required under section 39.522 . . . See § 39.522(2). . . . First, section 39.522(2) does not differentiate between case plans with the goal of reunification and . . . Finally, the Department has not argued that section 39.522(2) should be evaluated by different standards . . .

K. F. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 963 So. 2d 947 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 39.522, Florida Statutes, governing postdisposition changes of custody, provides that the standard . . . for such a change in custody “shall be the best interest of the child.” § 39.522(1), Fla. . . .

K. E. S. C. a v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 958 So. 2d 968 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . .”); §§ 39.522(2) and 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . The relationship between sections 39.522(2) and 39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes, was recently clarified . . .

R. H. E. H. J. J. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 948 So. 2d 898 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . . § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). See also D.G. v. . . .

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 936 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .

H. G. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN FAMILIES,, 916 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . .” § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health,” or otherwise not be in the child’s best interest. § 39.522 . . .

R. W. H. W. a v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 909 So. 2d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . See § 39.522(2) and § 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

D. S. D. B. T. A. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 900 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 39.522(2) provides: (2) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be . . . See section 39.522(2); In re H.H., 865 So.2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); In re M.C., 796 So.2d 566 (Fla. . . .

J. J. M. P. M. H. Ad v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 886 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See also § 39.522(2). . . .

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, v. T. L. a, 854 So. 2d 819 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2002), governs “postdisposition change of custody” and provides in . . . See § 39.522; Dep’t of Children & Families v. . . .

S. L. M. L. S. P. L. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 852 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . . § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. . . .

R. F. R. F. C. F. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 844 So. 2d 821 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . court to place the children with the parent upon completion of a home study, this section and sections 39.522 . . .

E. B. A. B. A. C. E. R. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 844 So. 2d 761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the child is endangered by reunification § 39.522 . . .

L. F. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES J. F., 837 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . The parties argue as to whether section 39.522 applies, dealing with postdisposition changes of temporary . . .