Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...is satisfied that reunification will not be detrimental to the child's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health.'" (quoting B.D.E. v. Dep't of Children & Family Services, 829 So.2d 359, 360 (Fla. 1st DCA *500 2002)). Similarly, section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2006), requires the trial court to "determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the ....

...ould be returned. [5] This presumption may be overcome by a finding that returning the children would endanger them. When a trial court rules on a motion for reunification, it must demonstrate thorough consideration of the two factors required under section 39.522(2) by specifically addressing six sub-factors: (a) The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan; (b) The circumstances which caused the' child's dependency and whether those circumstances have been resolved; (c) The...

...Specifically, we hold that a trial court may not refuse to reunify children with a parent without finding, based on factors existing at the time of the request, that doing so would endanger their safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health. See § 39.522(2)....

...did not want to see her and because of reports that B.G.'s therapist believed contact with the mother was not in B.G.'s best interests. [5] In this case, the goal of the case plan was long-term relative care. However, this goal does not affect the analysis for several reasons. First, section 39.522(2) does not differentiate between case plans with the goal of reunification and those for which the goal is long-term relative care....

...se that were associated with the goal of reunification. Third, the trial court is required to consider at each permanency hearing whether the goal of the case plan remains appropriate. See § 39.621(4)(a). Finally, the Department has not argued that section 39.522(2) should be evaluated by different standards according to the goal of the relevant case plan.

...umstances which caused the creation of the case plan have been significantly remedied to the extent that the well-being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child's remaining with or being returned to the child's parent." See also § 39.522(2)....

...[10] Substantial compliance is defined in section 39.01(68) as: [t]he circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan have been significantly remedied to the extent that the well being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child's remaining with or being returned to the child's parent. [11] Section 39.522(2) provides: (2) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that...

...nal health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home. (emphasis added) [12] Where a mother has substantially complied with her case plan, the children must be reunited with her if it is safe for the children to do so. See section 39.522(2); In re H.H., 865 So.2d 634 (Fla....

...The mother further contends she substantially complied with her case plan and therefore was entitled to have the children returned to her unless the court determined the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the children would be endangered by their return. § 39.522(2), Fla....

...The father produced no evidence that could support a finding that it would be in J.A.'s best interest to be removed from her current home and placed with her grandmother. The standard for ordering a change in the placement of a dependent child is the child's best interest. See § 39.522(1), Fla....

...orari if the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law as to the grandparents' rights, but no such departure is alleged in this appeal. This case actually involves an attempt to change custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522, and the grandparents cannot even demonstrate that any interested party filed a petition to change custody under that statute....

...And I've got more faith in the aunt I guess than you do. *821 Ultimately, the court placed the child with the aunt over the father's and DCF's objection. DCF specifically objected to the child being placed with the aunt before the background check and home study had been completed. Section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2002), governs "postdisposition change of custody" and provides in part: 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....

...d's best interest. Despite the trial court's good intentions in this case, the statutory scheme clearly requires that a home study be completed before a child is ordered to any out-of-home placement, other than a licensed shelter or foster home. See § 39.522; Dep't of Children & Families v....

...As the statute suggests, when a parent has requested reunification and substantially complied with her case plan, there is a presumption that the children should be returned. C.D. v. Dep't of Children and Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The trial court must address the factors listed in section 39.522(2), which are: (a) The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan; (b) The circumstances which caused the child's dependency and whether those circumstances have been resolved; (c) The stability and longevity of the child's placement; (d) The preferences of the child, if the child is of sufficient age and understanding to express a preference; (e) The recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) The recommendation of the guardian ad litem. . . . § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. Neither of the trial court's orders denying E.I.'s motions to reopen the case lists the factors to be considered under section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes....

...This court affirmed the trial court's denial of E.I.'s motion for extraordinary relief and reunification but remanded for entry of a corrected order containing the appropriate factual findings required by Florida statute. The statute cited by this court was section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, which deals with post-disposition changes in custody in active dependency cases....

...the controlling statute in this case as it deals with postclosure motions to reactivate. We agree with the Department's assertion and correct the scrivener's error in the previously issued opinion. We withdraw the section of the opinion referencing section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, and substitute section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, in its place....

...She's taking it as prescribed? A. Yes, she's taking it as prescribed. So I feel that that's seeking out the medical treatment and with the help *1246 that she needs and following through with it. Ultimately, the psycho-therapist strongly recommended reunification. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes, provides that: In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan...

...and mental safety of the child." The department's only witnesses, however, did not base their opinions opposing reunification on the statutory ground of endangerment to the children's "safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health." § 39.522(2), Fla....

...KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Although no copy of the petition for dependency was provided to this court, we assume that one was filed based upon a statement in the motion for rehearing of the court's order. [2] The parties argue as to whether section 39.522 applies, dealing with postdisposition changes of temporary legal custody, not the permanent custody determination which was made in this case....

...1st DCA 2008). In order for the trial court to deny a motion for reunification, it must demonstrate a thorough consideration of two factors: (1) the parent's compliance with the case plan, and (2) whether reunification would be detrimental to the children. See § 39.522(2), Fla....

...The mother has appealed, raising a number of issues. We write to address only one—the mother's claim that there was not competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that *949 removing the children from her custody was in the best interests of the children. 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....

...ee Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Department of Children and Families, 972 So.2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we treat the matter as a certiorari proceeding. In this case, the trial court found that the placement would be in the child's best interest, see section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and the evidence supports the trial court's factual findings....

...We reverse and remand for a thorough determination of whether L.M. substantially complied with the case plan. We note that if on remand the trial court determines that both parents substantially complied with the case plan, custody of the children would be determined based on their best interests. See § 39.522(1), Fla....

...The Department of Children and Families (DCF) had also reported the mother's substantial compliance with the case plan. The trial court, however, never determined whether the mother had substantially complied with her case plan or whether reunification would be detrimental to the children, as required by section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes....

...ari if the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law as to the grandparents’ rights, but no such departure is alleged in this appeal. This case actually involves an attempt to change custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522, and the grandparents cannot even demonstrate that any interested party filed a petition to change custody under that statute....

...satisfied that the parent "has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home." *1009 § 39.522(2), Fla....

...vision of the Department, unless the court, upon sufficient factual findings, concludes that reunification would endanger the child's "safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health," or otherwise not be in the child's best interest. § 39.522(2), Fla....

...She argues that the trial court erred by entering this order without determining whether she had substantially complied with her case plan and without considering the best interests of the child. Both the Department of Children and Family Services and the Guardian ad Litem have conceded error based on the plain language of section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides that "[i]n cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms o...

...ernal grandparent of the half-siblings. We affirm for several reasons, perhaps most importantly because the trial judge under the circumstances of this case is in a better position than we are to evaluate how best to provide for the care of M.Z. See § 39.522, Fla....

...must determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home. § 39.522(2), Fla....

...t him temporary custody/placement of the minor child. We treat the appeal as a petition for certiorari and grant relief because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by applying the best interest of the child standard under section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), instead of the standard set forth in section 39.521(3)(b) with regard to a non-offending parent who requests custody....

...The Department then sought a change of custody to the father with protective services supervision. The mother opposed the motion. *300 After a hearing, the trial court entered an order rejecting the standard urged by the Department under section 39.521(3)(b), and instead employed the best interest standard under section 39.522(1)....

...The DCF also proved the mother had not substantially complied with the case plan even though she had completed her tasks. 5 W.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So. 2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Where the issue is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, section 39.522(2) provides: 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. § 39.522(2), Fla....

subdivision follows the procedure set out in section 39.522(7), Florida Statutes (2024), which was enacted

...Procedure in response to recent legislation. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). We have jurisdiction 1 and adopt the amendments as proposed. In response to chapter 2020-65 and chapter 2020-138, Laws of Florida, which amend sections 39.0137, 39.522, 39.6011, and 39.701, Florida Statutes (2019), and became effective July 1, 2020, the Committee proposes amendments to the following rules: 8.225 (Process, Diligent Searches, and Service of Pleadings and Papers), 8.345 (Post-Disposition Relief), 8.400 (Case Plan Development), and 1....

...To conform with this statutory requirement, we add new subdivision (a)(5) (Service of Persons on Active Military Duty in Dependency Proceedings), which addresses service of a person on active military duty. Next, we amend rule 8.345 (Post-Disposition Relief), to address legislative changes made to section 39.522, Florida Statutes, by chapter 2020-138, section 5, -2- Laws of Florida. The legislative change to section 39.522(1) added factors that the court must consider when determining a change of legal custody or placement. Accordingly, we add new subdivision (b) (Standard for Changing Custody), which articulates these factors that must be considered. Additionally, the legislative amendment added subsection (4) to section 39.522, requiring that the court evaluate the child’s permanency goal when the court is changing the child’s custody or placement....

...ency). The majority of the proposals are in response to recent statutory amendments. See ch.2012-81, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.802(4)); ch.2012-84, § 2, Laws of Fla. (amending § 20.19, Fla. Stat.); eh.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.522(3), Fla....

...g the placement of a child," and therefore, "[a] finding regarding each of these factors is mandatory and vital to a proper order denying reunification." L.J.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 995 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Additionally, section 39.522(2) requires that when a court considers whether a child should be reunited with a parent, it "shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and...

...Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 39 So.3d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). *323 Here, the order denying the Mother's motion did not include any of the required findings under either statute. It included neither the mandatory factors in section 39.621(10) nor the requisite finding under section 39.522(2) that reunification would endanger the child....

...Despite Mother’s progress, the trial court subsequently gave Father permanent custody and closed the case, without making a finding that reunification with Mother would either endanger the child or not be in the child’s best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes....

...he welfare of the children.” The trial court denied the Mother’s motion. The Mother argues that the trial court’s finding that the Mother was not in substantial compliance with her case plan was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: (2) In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the cas...

...Despite Mother's progress, the trial court subsequently gave Father permanent custody and closed the case, without making a finding that reunification with Mother would either endanger the child or not be in the child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes....

...the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and terminating the circuit court’s jurisdiction. This case requires us to consider the applicability of different and apparently inconsistent statutory provisions relating to reunification, sections 39.522(2) 1 and 39.621(10), 2 Florida Statutes (2010). *689 We reverse the orders below, and remand the case for a restoration of the status quo and further proceedings, because we find that section 39.522(2) was applicable, that neither DCF nor the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) proved (nor did the magistrate or trial court find) endangerment of the “safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child” 3 pursuant to...

...parent seeks to become the permanent custodial parent upon the closing of the dependency proceeding even though the offending parent, the mother, achieved her tasks for reunification. In such a circumstance, the controlling standard is set forth in section 39.522(2): In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, w...

...The general magistrate’s charge, therefore, was not to select the “better” permanency option. Instead, having determined that the mother substantially complied with her ease plan, the general magistrate was obligated to allow reunification with the mother unless that would “endanger” K.B. as described in section 39.522(2)....

...Upon remand, the parties will be returned to the status quo (K.B.’s placement will remain with the father pending the further proceedings, with visitation by the mother) until the trial court considers whether reunification will “endanger” KB. under section 39.522(2)....

...plied with her or his case plan. As the incorrect standard was applied below, we reverse the circuit court orders and remand the case for further proceedings applying the correct “endangerment” standard. Reversed and remanded, with directions. . Section 39.522 is captioned "Postdisposition change of custody.” Subsection (2) provides: In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially...

...As we have stated: Despite the trial court’s good intentions …, the statutory scheme clearly requires that a home study be completed before a child is ordered to any out-of-home placement, other than a licensed shelter or foster home. See § 39.522; Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.G., 821 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that trial court erred in changing legal and physical custody of the child without a home study). Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. T.L., 854 So. 2d 819, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); § 39.522(2)(c), Fla....

...Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 881 So.2d 702, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). There are two factors a trial court must consider when ruling on a motion for reunification: the parent’s compliance with the case plan and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child. C.D., 974 So.2d at 500 . Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), suggests that when a parent requests reunification and has substantially complied with the case plan there is a presumption of reunification....

...of E.B. with A.B., unless the court determines that E.B. has not substantially complied with the terms of his case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the child is endangered by reunification § 39.522(2), Fla....

session. See Ch.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.522, Florida Statutes, effective July 1, 2013, adding

respondent M.D., from the mother’s home pursuant to section 39.522(4), Florida Statutes (2020), due to safety

...her jurisdiction for an alleged failure to comply with conditions of supervision. Finally, DCF argues that the trial court was authorized to order the children removed from the mother's custody, without initiating a new dependency action, based upon section 39.522, Florida Statutes, which allows the court to "change the temporary legal custody or the conditions of protective supervision at a post-disposition hearing, without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing." Again, the express language of the statute contradicts DCF's position....

...Having considered the proposed amendments and relevant legislation, we hereby adopt the amendments as proposed, with one minor modification for amending the form 8.973 orders. The more significant amendments are discussed below. First, rule 8.217 is amended to conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now requires an attorney for the child (rather than an attorney ad litem) to be appointed when a caregiver provides notice of objection to a change in the child’s physical custody placement....

...the child’s safety or well-being and that may result in restoration of communication and visitation if such services are available. -3-  Rule 8.345 (Post-Disposition Relief) is amended to conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522, Florida Statutes, which now provides that a hearing must be held if “any party or the current caregiver denies the need for a change [to custody placement]” and creates a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best...

...placement if certain conditions are present. Accordingly, the phrase “any party or the current caregiver” is now used in place of the previous list of persons whose objection would require a hearing on these matters. Also, as the amendments to section 39.522 modified the factors a court must consider when changing custody placement and established a priority hierarchy for custody placement, the list of factors that were previously enumerated in subdivision (b)(1) is now replaced with a...

...by the multidisciplinary team, if applicable, and the priority of placements as provided by law, or as otherwise provided by law.” Also, a new subdivision (b)(2) is created to address the rebuttable presumption described in the recently enacted section 39.522(3)(b)1, and the subsequent subdivisions are renumbered to -4- accommodate the new subdivision....

...earing on Mother's motion for reunification to allow the circuit court to consider whether the child would be endangered by being returned to Mother's custody, and whether it was in the child's best interest to be returned to Mother's custody. See §§ 39.522(3), 39.621(11), Fla....

...rded permanent custody to non-offending parent and closed the case without making finding that reunification with offending parent, who substantially complied with case plan, would either endanger child or not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3) ); see also J.G....

...earing on Mother's motion for reunification to allow the circuit court to consider whether the child would be endangered by being returned to Mother's custody, and whether it was in the child's best interest to be returned to Mother's custody. See §§ 39.522(3), 39.621(11), Fla....

...rded permanent custody to non-offending parent and closed the case without making finding that reunification with offending parent, who substantially complied with case plan, would either endanger child or not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3) ); see also J.G....

...We therefore reverse and remand the portion of the order that terminates the Department's supervision and the circuit court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, in ordering reunification of the mother with the child, the circuit court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.522.1 Thus, we also reverse the portion of the order granting reunification....

...(“Department”) supervision over the Mother’s minor child, M.G. Based on the Department’s proper and commendable confession of error, we grant the petition, quash the order under review, and remand for an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2017). The Mother’s minor children, including M.G., were adjudicated dependent in February 2016....

...motion to terminate protective services without conducting a hearing on the Mother’s motion for reunification.1 We agree. As the Department has properly conceded, the Mother is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her motion for reunification. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2017), provides: In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home. Further, section 39.522(3) requires the trial court to determine whether the minor child should nonetheless stay with the non-offending parent even though the trial court has determined that the offending parent is in substantial compliance with the case plan....

...Here, the Mother has established the jurisdictional prerequisites to certiorari relief. 3  We, therefore, grant the petition, quash the order under review, and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2017). Petition granted; order quashed; remanded for further proceedings. 4 

...on of placement was in J.S.'s best interest. The GAL maintains that this error will result in irreparable harm due to J.S.'s special needs and his current placement in a long-term, stable environment. In response, DCF asserts that section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2013), while requiring the circuit court to consider the child's best interest, does not mandate that a circuit court make an express finding on that factor. However, DCF concedes that there is no indication either in the circuit court's oral ruling or in the written order that the circuit court did, in fact, consider J.S.'s best interest prior to modifying his placement. Section 39.522(1) provides that "[t]he standard for changing custody of the child shall be the best interest of the child." A circuit court departs from the essential requirements of the law where it fails to consider the child's best interest before modifying placement....

...The judicial review order terminated supervision and jurisdiction as to A.L. Analysis On appeal, the mother argues the court could not deny reunification absent a specific finding that A.L.’s safety and well-being would be endangered. She relies on section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which, at the time of the reunification hearing, provided that a child must be reunited with the offending parent if the parent has substantially complied with the case plan to the extent the child would not be endangered by reunification. The Department points out that section 39.522 was amended after the hearing to add a third subsection specifically addressing reunification with the offending parent when the child is in the temporary custody of the non-offending parent....

...The Department argues that the amended version of the statute allows a court to deny a reunification motion based solely on the best interest of the child, even where there is no evidence that reunification would endanger the child. 2 We turn now to a discussion of each version of section 39.522, and to the issue of the retroactive application of the amended version of the statute. 3 Application of the (“Older”) 2012 Version of Section 39.522 The relevant statute in effect at the time of the reunification hearing provided the following: In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall determine whether the parent has substantially complied with the terms of the case plan to the extent that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the return of the child to the home. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). Of important and historical note is this court’s recognition that even when applying section 39.522(2), however, the trial court must also make additional findings required under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2012)....

...4th DCA 2009) (reversing denial of reunification where trial court failed to make “specific written, factual findings as to why reunification would not be in the best interests of [the] child,” as required under section 39.621(10)). Under the case law interpreting the pre-July 1, 2013 version of section 39.522, a trial court was required to consider the “best interest” factors enumerated in section 39.621(10). Even so, section 39.522(2) still required the trial court to grant a motion for reunification absent a finding of endangerment to the child in cases where the parent substantially complied with the case plan....

...court to make required findings); S.V.-R., 77 So.3d at 690-91 (reversing orders denying mother’s motion for reunification and directing that child remain with father, and remanding for trial court to make required “endangerment” finding under section 39.522(2)); In re G.M., 73 So.3d 320, 322 (Fla....

...tial evidence on the issue of endangerment. Further, even in its broadest sense, the guardian ad litem’s testimony does not *324 imply the child would be endangered by reunification with the mother. Application of the (“Newer”) 2013 Version of Section 39.522 On July 1, 2013, the current version of section 89.522 became effective....

...e with the terms of the case plan, 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. § 39.522(3), Fla....

...and J.D., and have different fathers from one another. . The Department recognizes that no evidence was presented to the court below which in any way suggested that reunification would endanger A.L. . The Department concedes that if the amended ("newer") version of section 39.522 does not apply and this court uses the law in effect at the time of the hearing, we would have to find that the trial court erred in denying the mother’s motion....

...and thus, the trial court did not err by using a best interest of the child standard. . The legislative history indicates that confusion in the case law regarding the correct standard in determining reunification motions resulted in the amendment to section 39.522, Florida Statutes. A staff analysis provides: The bill amends s. 39.522, F.S., related to postdisposition change of custody, to clarify that, in cases in which a court is deciding whether to reunite a child, who is in the custody of one parent, with a non-custodial parent who has substantially completed a reuni...

R. Juv. P. 8.000. This includes MOP hearings. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2022); Fla. R. Jud. P. 8.345(a)

...Having considered the proposed amendments and relevant legislation, we hereby adopt the amendments as proposed, with one minor modification for amending the form 8.973 orders. The more significant amendments are discussed below. First, rule 8.217 is amended to conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now requires an attorney for the child (rather than an attorney ad litem) to be appointed when a caregiver provides notice of objection to a change in the child’s physical custody placement....

...the child’s safety or well-being and that may result in restoration of communication and visitation if such services are available. -3-  Rule 8.345 (Post-Disposition Relief) is amended to conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522, Florida Statutes, which now provides that a hearing must be held if “any party or the current caregiver denies the need for a change [to custody placement]” and creates a rebuttable presumption that it is in the child’s best...

...placement if certain conditions are present. Accordingly, the phrase “any party or the current caregiver” is now used in place of the previous list of persons whose objection would require a hearing on these matters. Also, as the amendments to section 39.522 modified the factors a court must consider when changing custody placement and established a priority hierarchy for custody placement, the list of factors that were previously enumerated in subdivision (b)(1) is now replaced with a...

...by the multidisciplinary team, if applicable, and the priority of placements as provided by law, or as otherwise provided by law.” Also, a new subdivision (b)(2) is created to address the rebuttable presumption described in the recently enacted section 39.522(3)(b)1, and the subsequent subdivisions are renumbered to -4- accommodate the new subdivision....

...her secures a higher level of care type placement in the State of Kentucky.” In line with that testimony, the court found that the enumerated statutory factors “appear facially favorable to ordering placement of the child with the mother.” See § 39.522(6), Fla....

...This status was granted in a proceeding in which the Department is seeking to transfer custody from the Caregivers to allow a maternal aunt to adopt K.J. and unite K.J. with his sibling. The issue presented concerns whether the Caregivers are entitled to party status under subsection (3) of section 39.522, Florida Statutes....

...The Caregivers, noting they had maintained custody of K.J. for at least nine months, responded by filing a motion indicating they also desired to adopt K.J. and seeking party status. The trial court ruled (1) the Caregivers were not entitled to the presumption afforded by section 39.522(3)(b), but (2) the Caregivers were entitled to be granted limited party status under section 39.522(3)(c)4.a....

...We have jurisdiction. Turning to the merits, Chapter 39 excludes caregivers from party status, with limited exceptions. See, e.g., § 39.01(58), Fla. Stat. (2023).1 The limited exception at issue in this matter occurs in subsection (3) of section 39.522. Section 39.522 establishes processes for post-disposition changes in custody....

...Under that subsection, if “the [D]epartment” or “other interested person” files a motion to change custody, the matter will be brought before the court. Further, “[i]f 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.” § 39.522(2)(a), Fla....

...(emphasis added). 1 Effective July 1, 2024, the definition of “party” now appears in section 39.01(61). 4  In contrast, subsection (4) involves the special circumstance where a change in custody would reunite a child with a parent. § 39.522(4), Fla. Stat. Subsection (5) involves the special circumstance where a child in the custody of one parent would have his or her custody changed to “be reunited with the other parent.” § 39.522(5), Fla. Stat. Subsection (6) involves the special circumstance where the Department seeks to remove a child from the child’s own home after being placed there. § 39.522(6), Fla. Stat. Finally, subsection (7) allows for the immediate removal of a child by departmental officials or law enforcement when a court-ordered caregiver requests such change. § 39.522(7), Fla....

...Stat. The subsection at issue here, subsection (3), begins by establishing that, where the Department seeks to change the custody of a child, a rebuttable presumption exists that it is in the best interest of the child to remain permanently with the caregiver provided five conditions exist. Section 39.522(3)(b), which establishes the presumption, sets forth the five conditions: 1....

...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. § 39.522(3)(b)1., Fla....

...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.” § 39.522(3)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Subsection (3) then allows the caregiver who was given the notice to object in writing within five days. § 39.522(3)(c)2., Fla. Stat. If such an objection is timely filed, the Department’s intended change in placement is held in abeyance until the court rules on it. § 39.522(3)(c)3., Fla. Stat. In these circumstances, the court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if the presumption is rebutted. § 39.522(3)(c)2., Fla....

...Stat. But during the evidentiary hearing, “[t]his 6 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.” § 39.522(3)(b)3., Fla....

...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.” § 39.522(3)(c)4.a., Fla. Stat. Turning to the subject case, the trial court found, and we agree, that the Caregivers were not entitled to subsection (3)’s presumption....

...The presumption only applies when 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.” § 39.522(3)(b)1.e., Fla....

...Caregivers would create at least two anomalies. First, subsection (3) requires its notice to be given only to “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)[.]” § 39.522(3)(c)1., Fla. Stat....

...There is no reason why the Legislature would intend persons to have the right to party status but not a right to the notice from which the party status springs. Second, subsection (3) indicates that party status is granted for the purpose of “presenting evidence pursuant to this subsection.” § 39.522(3)(c)4.a., Fla. Stat. The evidence discussed concerns evidence that can be used to disprove the presumption. See, e.g., § 39.522(3)(b)3., Fla. Stat....

...rebutting the presumption: “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.” § 39.522(3)(b)2., Fla....

...We interpret subsection (3) to involve the special circumstance concerning a change in custody where the caregiver is entitled to the rebuttable presumption set out in subjection (3). Under the interpretation that we adopt, the provision setting forth the two conditions for party status in section 39.522(3)(c)4.a....

...The First District quashed the order. It held that, because the caregiver did not qualify for the presumption and therefore the notice in subsection (3), the caregiver did not qualify for the party status under subsection (3). “From the notice requirement in section 39.522(3)(c)1. springs other caregiver's rights in section 39.522(3)(c)2.-4. and (3)(d)-(e), including the provisions in section 39.522(3)(c)4.a. used by the trial court to grant party status to the caregivers.” Id. at 422-23. The First District reasoned, therefore, that because, “paragraph (b) of section 39.522(3) [did] not apply in this case, [ ] the caregivers should not have been granted party status.” Id. at 423 (“[T]he requirements in section 39.522(3)(b)1.b. and (3)(b)1.e. were not met, meaning section 39.522(3)(c)1.-4....

...requirements of the law by allowing the child's maternal grandmother, aunt, and uncle to intervene in a dependency hearing when they did not fall within the definition of parties). Furthermore, to the extent that the Prospective Parents argue that pursuant to section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2023), the issue of intervention became moot on January 14, 2024, we disagree. Although the Prospective Parents allege that on that date the children had been placed with them for nine continuous months, thus triggering the provisions of section 39.522, that statute provides for party status in a limited capacity only. Section 39.522 pertains to postdisposition change of custody. If a caregiver objects to the change in custody, then it must notify the court and the Department of the objection and intent to request an evidentiary hearing. § 39.522(3)(c)2. 4....

...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. § 39.522(3)(c)4.a (emphasis added). Thus, caregivers may become limited parties for the purposes of the change of placement hearing but do not enjoy unlimited party status throughout the dependency hearing. See J.B., 361 So. 3d at 427 (Tanenbaum, J., concurring) (noting that section 39.522(3) provides a very "narrow exception that allows for intervention by a non-relative caregiver only when several very specific criteria are met"). 8  As such, even if the children have been living with the Prospective Parents for nine continuous months as of January 14, 2024, and the Prospective Parents met the criteria of section 39.522, the issue of intervention as a party would not be moot because the trial court improperly granted unlimited party status to the Prospective Parents rather than limited party status as contemplated by section 39.522(3)(c)4.a. Accordingly, we grant GAL's petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court's order granting the Prospective Parents' motion to intervene as a party in the underlying dependency action. Petition granted; o...

...th the parent, whichever occurs first; or .... 3. The child has been in care for any 12 of the last 22 months and the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522(2) unless the failure to substantially comply with the case plan was due to the parent's lack of financial resources or to the failure of the department to make reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and child. E....

...dependent, a case plan has been filed with the trial court, and [t]he child has been in care for any 12 of the last 22 months and the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522(2) unless the failure to substantially comply with the case plan was due to the parent’s lack of financial resources or to the failure of the [D]epartment to make reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and chi...

...lack of competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the Mother failed to substantially comply with her case plan and that the circumstances that caused the Child’s out-of-home placement have not been “remedied to the 11 Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2017), provides as follows: 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...

...22 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.” § 39.522(2) (emphasis added)....

...est for reunification in this case, the law required that the court consider the parent's compliance with the case plan, whether reunification would be detrimental to the child, and whether reunification would be in the child's best interest. 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 issue before the court is whether a child who is placed in the custody of a parent should be reunited with the other par...

...(emphasis added).5 Prior to July 1, 2013, courts were required to grant reunification absent a finding of endangerment if the parent seeking reunification had substantially complied with his case plan. T.N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 132 So. 3d 319, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). However, the 2013 amendment to section 39.522, which added subsection (3), elevated the best-interest determination to a status at least equal to that of the question of endangerment....

...Thus, a court may deny reunification if it is not in the child's best interest even if the court does not find that reunification would endanger the child. Id.; see ch. 2013-21, § 3, at 216, Laws of Fla. 5 Effective July 1, 2017, the text of section 39.522(3) has been amended. Now, "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 ....

...will not be detrimental to the child," the court must determine "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." § 39.522(3), Fla....

...order addresses the best interest factors of section 39.621, its findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence. B. The dependency court's order In its order, after noting the then-applicable requirements of section 39.522(3), the dependency court addressed the best interest factors....

...First, the dependency court concluded that the Father had complied with his case plan because he completed the tasks therein. See § 39.621(10)(a). However, the court did not address this factor in conjunction with the then-applicable language of section 39.522(3), requiring a finding of "substantial compliance with the terms of the case plan." " 'Substantial compliance' means that the circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan have been significantly remedied to the extent th...

...dangered the child's safety or well-being," N.F. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 82 So. 3d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), such that best interest factors (a) and (b) are interrelated. This conclusion is further supported by the amendment to section 39.522(3) and its focus on remediation of the circumstances which caused the out-of-home placement. In considering factor (b), resolution of the circumstances causing the child's dependency, the court summarized the allegations of sexual abuse in the petition for dependency....

...See § 39.0139(3); J.C., 83 So. 3d at 888. It does not appear that the dependency court applied the presumption. - 18 - support to do so.10 The court did not apply or consider the standard set forth in section 39.522(3): "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." This is a clear departure from the essential requirements of the law. III....

...(2004). No argument is made that, prior to placing the child with the father, the court failed to consider the best interest of the child. Clearly, substantial compliance with a case plan is a prerequisite to reuniting a parent and a dependent child. See § 39.522(2) and § 39.701(9)(b), Fla....

...Because we find no departure from the essential requirements of law, we deny the petition. A court may enter a postdisposition change of custody without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing if it finds the need for a change is in the “best interest of the child.” See section 39.522(1), Fla....

...The Department claims error based on the lack of compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) as required by section 409.401, Florida Statutes, and the lack of a home study of the father’s residence in Indiana. See §§ 39.521(3)(b), 39.522(1), Fla....

...becomes effective in Florida. See § 409.408, Fla. Stat., Art. III.B.5. 7 dependency action and relinquishment of the court’s jurisdiction cannot be affirmed. Additionally, even without the ICPC requirement, section 39.522(1), requires compliance with “the home study criteria,” and that requirement has not been met. Accordingly, the circuit court’s order dismissing the dependency action and relinquishing jurisdiction over these children is reversed....