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....

custody of the child postdisposition under section 39.522, and the grandparents cannot even demonstrate

...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)....

whether a child should be reunited with a parent, section 39.522(2) provides: the court shall review

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

Relief), to address legislative changes made to section 39.522, Florida Statutes, by chapter 2020-138, section

Stat.); eh.2013-21, § 3, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat.); ch. 2013-107 (amending § 90.702

...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....

be in the child’s best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse

supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), provides: (2)

the child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we reverse

and further proceedings, because we find that section 39.522(2) was applicable, that neither DCF nor the

than a licensed shelter or foster home. See § 39.522; Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.G

detrimental to the child. C.D., 974 So.2d at 500. Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2011), suggests that

health of the child is endangered by reunification § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2002); C.F. v. Dep’t of Children

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....

conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now

not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3) ); see also J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams

not be in child's best interest pursuant to section 39.522(3) ); see also J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams

court failed to comply with the requirements of section 39.522.1 Thus, we also reverse the portion of the

for an evidentiary hearing consistent with section 39.522(2), (3), Florida Statutes (2017). The

...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....

well-being would be endangered. She relies on section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2012), which, at the

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

conform with recent legislative changes to section 39.522(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), which now

ordering placement of the child with the mother.” See § 39.522(6), Fla. Stat. (listing placement factors). The

entitled to party status under subsection (3) of section 39.522, Florida Statutes. While the statute at issue

Prospective Parents argue that pursuant to section 39.522, Florida Statutes (2023), the issue of intervention

placement have not been “remedied to the 11 Section 39.522(2), Florida Statutes (2017), provides as follows:

reunification would be in the child’s best interest. See § 39.522(3), Fla. Stat. (2016); see also W.H., 109 So.3d

reuniting a parent and a dependent child. See § 39.522(2) and § 39.701(9)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). However

is in the “best interest of the child.” See section 39.522(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). See also R.W. v

Additionally, even without the ICPC requirement, section 39.522(1), requires compliance with “the home study