Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Dep’t of Children & Families, 1 So.3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)). In F.E., the Third District concluded that an order terminating supervision is not ap-pealable because such orders do not necessarily conclude dependency proceedings. Id. (citing §§ 39.521, 39.621, Fla....

...judgment subject to plenary appeal, nor a non-final order subject to interlocutory appeal under rule 9.130(a)(3)). Further, ■ the treatment of post-dependency orders as non-final because of the possibility of future modification is compatible with section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes. Specifically, section 39.621(9) provides that the court shall hold' a hearing to determine whether modification of an order is appropriate if a parent whose parental rights have not been terminated submits a motion for reunification or increased contact with the child. § 39.621(9), Fla....

...d 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 § 39.621(10), Fla....

...case was initiated, without regard to the parent's progress as overcoming those issues, is improper. If a trial court could properly base its decision concerning reunification solely on issues existing at the time the dependency case was initiated, section 39.621(10)(b) and all of the provisions regarding case plan development and compliance would be meaningless....

...fication. Such consideration is necessary if the trial court is to give effect to the legislatively mandated goal of remedying families' problems to achieve safe reunification. In this case, the trial court failed to follow the mandatory language of section 39.621(10)....

...Second, the tasks associated with the long-term relalive placement goal in this case are no different from those 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)....

...f this case. Generally, a court should not consider permanent guardianship as a permanency option unless the court first “determines that reunification or adoption is not in the. best interest of the child.... ” § 39.6221(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Section 39.621(2)(a)-(e) lists permanency options for dependent children in order of legislative preference....

...” § 39.6221(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). One of the purposes of Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, is to ensure that permanent placement with the biological or adoptive family is achieved as soon as possible for every child. See § 39.001(l)(h), Fla. Stat.' (2014). Section 39.621(1) also notes that “[t]ime is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system.” Adoption is preferred over guardianship because guardianship requires continuing judicial involvement, whereas adoption is as equall...

...The trial court’s denial of the petition and change of case plan goal to permanent guardianship denied the children the permanency and stability of adoption. Doing so under the circumstances of this case prioritized tenuous parental contact over the children’s right to permanency, in direct conflict with section 39.621....

...Amy Beauchaine, Orlando, for Appellee, Participant/Custodian. Charles D. Peters, Orlando, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families. *1265 PLEUS, C.J. B.L. and M.L., parents of L.L., a minor, appeal from an order permanently committing L.L. to the long-term custody of a relative pursuant to sections 39.621, et seq., Florida Statutes....

...According to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (2006), it is the intent of the Florida Legislature to achieve permanency for every child in the dependency system. § 39.001(1)(h). When it is determined that *1266 reunification with either parent is inappropriate, the court must make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1)....

...termination have been established by clear and convincing evidence and reunification would not be in the manifest best interests of the child. Not only would this option be contrary to legal precedent, but it would also be contrary to the legislative scheme. Section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2016), specifies that permanent guardianship shall be considered only after reunification and adoption are not available options. Accordingly, we approve the decision of the Fourth District in S.M....

...-8- initial child protective services investigation (section 39.301), the shelter hearing (section 39.401), the adjudication of dependency (section 39.501), the case plan (section 39.6011), and finally the permanency determination (section 39.621) and the termination of parental rights (section 39.801). The Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure governing Dependency and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings also specify in detail the procedures for effectuating the...

...The Fourth District’s interpretation is also more consistent with the Legislature’s permanency goals in dependency cases. The Legislature has clearly stated its preference of permanency options for children in the dependency system in section 39.621, Florida Statutes: (2) The permanency goals available under this chapter, listed in order of preference, are: (a) Reunification; (b) Adoption, if a petition for termination of parental righ...

...dependent child under s. 39.6221; (d) Permanent placement with a fit and willing relative under s. 39.6231; or (e) Placement in another planned permanent living arrangement under s. 39.6241 Id. §§ 39.621(2)(a)-(e) (emphasis added). Only after the trial court determines that adoption or reunification would not be in the best interests of the child may DCF consider “some other arrangement.”...

...§ 39.6221(1). The Legislature has also made clear that “[t]ime is of the essence” in providing permanency for children requiring that, if possible, children should be placed in a permanent living situation within one year of coming into care. § 39.621(1), Fla....

...permanency in a timely fashion. Finally, there is a strong policy incentive in achieving permanency for children in care as quickly as possible. This is clear in the Legislature’s statutory requirement that “[t]ime is of the essence” in dependency cases. § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat....

...mily is achieved within one year of her placement into foster care. § 39.001(1)(h). The Florida Legislature *1219 has also decreed that "[i]f a child will not be reunited with a parent, adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option." § 39.621(6) (emphasis added)....

...It is the intent of the Florida Legislature to achieve permanency for every child in the dependency system. § 39.001(1)(h). When it is determined that reunification with either parent is inappropriate, the court must make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1). When reunification is not an option, adoption is the preferred permanency option. § 39.621(2). However, if adoption is not in the child's best interests, the court may consider other permanency options, such as guardianship pursuant to chapter 744, Florida Statutes, long-term custody, long-term licensed custody, and independent living. § 39.621(3)....

...Therefore, permanency was achieved. The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and is not to be disturbed absent a finding that the circumstances of the permanent placement are no longer in the best interests of the child. § 39.621(3)....

...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. On its motion for clarification, the Department asks this court to clarify its opinion by substituting section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, as it is 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. This substitution does not change the result of the case as the six factors to be considered by the court as per our opinion are found in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes....

...t search to determine the parent's whereabouts. See § 39.503(5), Fla. Stat. Finally, before making a permanency determination, such as a chapter 63 adoption, the dependency court must determine reunification with either parent is inappropriate. See § 39.621(1), Fla....

...e future to the discretion of the custodial father. In fact, because her parental rights have not been terminated, and as the order otherwise states, she retains the unqualified ability to seek a modification or elimination of any restrictions under section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes (2008). [2] Certiorari denied; order amended. NOTES [1] "If the Father later feels the child is ready for contact [with] the mother he may get the child therapy and request the court address such issue at such time." [2] Section 39.621(9) provides: The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by the court that the circumstances of the permanency placement are no longer in the best interest of the child....

...Moreover, DCFS argues that following the magistrate’s report and recommendation, the mother did not properly set the matter before the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. We do not agree that the State properly noticed the mother for the permanency hearing. Section 39.621(3)(a) states: At least 3 business days before the permanency hearing, the department shall file its judicial review social services report with the court and serve copies of the report on all parties....

...minally in connection with the son’s death. The Department did not offer S.S. a case plan, and filed an expedited petition for termination of her parental rights. 1 (“Time is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system.” § 39.621(1), Fla....

...rounds. See C.D. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that trial court's finding of detriment to the child was "not based on any specific findings, and therefore, [was] not reasonably objective"). Further, section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, directs the trial court to consider the following six factors in deciding the parent's motion for reunification: (a) The compliance or noncompliance of the parent with the case plan; (b) The circumstances which c...

...lacement; (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, if one has been appointed. § 39.621(10), Fla....

...In this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court's conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child....

...Permanency in a relative placement shall be by adoption, long-term custody, or guardianship. First, there was no finding in any of the orders that the mother was unfit. Second, it appears that "permanency status" with the stepfather is not available for N.R. under the statutory scheme. Section 39.621 provides: (1) When the court has determined that reunification with either parent is not appropriate, then the court must make a permanency determination for the child....

...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. § 39.621(10), Fla....

...Thus, the trial court improperly relied on the magistrate's deficient order to conclude that returning the children to the mother would endanger their safety and well-being. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for the trial court to make detailed factual findings pursuant to section 39.621(10)....

...The trial court’s denial of the petition and change of case plan goal to permanent guardianship denied the children the permanency and stability of adoption. Doing so under the circumstances of this case prioritized tenuous parental contact over the children’s right to permanency, in direct conflict with section 39.621....

...After a hearing, the court entered an order ratifying and approving the re *327 port and recommendation of the magistrate. On appeal, the mother challenges the order terminating jurisdiction, claiming it fails to comply with Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (2009), as it relates to permanency determinations. Section 39.621, Florida Statutes, requires that permanency hearings be held at specified times....

...the child.” Permanency goals under the statute, in order of preference, include reunification, adoption, permanent guardianship, permanent placement with a fit and willing relative or placement in another planned permanent living arrangement. See § 39.621(2)(a)-(e), Fla....

...It is not clear what the case plan goal of “maintain and strengthen” means. DCF took the position below that such a goal allows it the option of not providing the offending parent with a reunification plan. The mother, however, observes that “maintain and strengthen” is not a permanency goal recognized in section 39.621(2)(a)-(e)....

...inues to be the goal.” The December 17, 2009, permanency order states the permanency goal as “reunification — maintain & strengthen.” DCF counters that: (1) “maintain and strengthen” is equivalent to the permanency goal recognized in section 39.621(2)(d) of “permanent placement with the fit and willing relative”; (2) concurrent permanency goals may be pursued, here, either reunification as to the mother or maintain and strengthen as to the father; and (3) once one of these go...

...ative, or a legal custodian, and that protective supervision is no longer needed.”). At a minimum, it does not appear that DCF and the mother were operating with the same understanding as to the permanency goal. While DCF may be correct that under section 39.621 multiple permanency goals may be pursued, such goals must be clearly enunciated to those involved in the dependency action. DCF understandably emphasizes the directive in section 39.621(1) that “time is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system” but the utilization of vague and uncertain permanency goals as here, does not further the efficient and proper disposition of dependency proceedings....

...ic statutory authority for immediate relief. We have de novo review of statutory interpretation. B.Y. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004). To support its request for a full evidentiary hearing, the Department cited section 39.621(9), Florida Statutes (2011), which states: The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by the court that the circumstances of the permanency placement are no longer in the best interest of the child....

...ification of the order. At the hearing, the parent must demonstrate that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the modification. (emphasis added). The motion for clarification also cited section 39.621(10), which states: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child....

...e child’s dependency, and explaining whether those circumstances have been resolved. The statute on which the Department relies is a well-established principle of law, not new or untested legislation. See Ch. 2006-86, § 19, Laws of Fla. (enacting section 39.621(9) and (10))....

...(2011) (“The court shall retain jurisdiction over the case and the child shall remain in the custody of the permanent guardian unless the order creating the permanent guardianship is modified by the court.”). “Time is of the essence for permanency of children in the dependency system.” § 39.621(1), Fla....

...he approval of the case plan for: .... (b) The child's need for permanency, taking into consideration the child's age and developmental needs; (c) The failure of a party to substantially comply with a task in the original case plan.... Additionally, section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2009) addresses the amendment of case plan goals at the permanency hearing: "The purpose of the permanency hearing is to determine ... whether modifying the current goal is in the best interest of the child." § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). The plain language of sections 39.6013 and 39.621 makes clear that a trial court may change the case plan goals....

...In determining whether termination of parental rights is necessary to protect a child from serious future harm, a court may take into account all relevant evidence, including evidence of past parent-child contact. Id. The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in determining the permanency goal, as section 39.621(5) prescribes....

...We reverse and remand both orders because the order on permanency review neglects to make adequate findings on L.M.'s substantial compliance with DCF's case plan, and the order terminating protective supervision neglects to address the six parental reunification factors set forth in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...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. Stat. (2009). Additionally, section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2009), mandates that six factors "be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order on the motion [by a parent for reunification]." The trial court's order reopening this case in response to T.S.'s letter addressed these six factors....

...sion are devoid of the preferences of the children, the recommendation of the current custodian, or the recommendation of the guardian ad litem, we also reverse and remand for the *410 trial court to consider and address all six factors contained in section 39.621(10)....

...The adoption statutes are intended "to provide to all children who can benefit by it a permanent family life[.]" § 63.022(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). Further, in the context of a child's placement in the dependency system, adoption is preferable to guardianship. § 39.621(2), Fla....

...However, because it appears the circuit court’s order, and the mother’s arguments on appeal, both rest upon the interpretation of Chapter 39’s requirements, our review is de novo. See State, Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So. 3d 707, 709 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statutory interpretation of section 39.621 is reviewed de novo). Applying de novo review, we agree with the mother’s arguments on appeal....

...to complete a case plan, then the court nevertheless lacked the statutory authority to require the mother to complete a “maintain and strengthen” case plan after having removed the child from the mother and placing the child with the father. Section 39.621(2), Florida Statutes (2018), authorizes a “maintain and strengthen” case plan in only three circumstances: (a) If a child has not been removed from a parent, even if adjudication of dependency is withheld, the court ma...

...y option. (c) If a child has been removed from a parent and is subsequently reunified with that parent, the court may leave the child with that parent with maintaining and strengthening the placement as a permanency option. § 39.621(2), Fla....

...ldren and Family Services' supervision; and (3) retained jurisdiction. We affirm but write only to point out that the Father, who is incarcerated, is mistaken in concluding that the trial court's order essentially terminates his parental rights. See § 39.621(9), Fla....

...The failure to make statutorily-mandated findings in termination of parental rights proceedings is reversible error. Cf. L.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 20 So. 3d 408, 409-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversing and remanding for trial court to consider and address all six factors of section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes, which “mandates that [the] six factors ‘be considered and addressed in the findings of fact of the order on the motion [by a parent for reunification].’”). Furthermore, competent substantial evidence...

...Mother who does not have the capacity to prevent their re-entry into the system whether by direct abuse or by abandonment. The judgment goes on to say that “there are no less restrictive means legally avail *855 able to establish permanency under section 39.621, Florida Statutes, other than termination of parental rights for the adoptive placement.” This analysis appropriately supports the termination judgment....

...and whether reunification would be detrimental to the child. C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The court is also required to make written factual findings as to the six statutory factors contained in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes....

...considered by the Legislature to be an expedited timeframe in other contexts. See, e.g., § 39.001(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (2023) (stating that one of the purposes of Florida’s dependency system is to ensure “that no child remains in foster care longer than 1 year.”); § 39.621(1), Fla....

...made no showing that the trial court’s decision to deny immediate reunification was an abuse of discretion. The trial court did order additional visitation, and did not rule out eventual reunification. S.P.’s strongest argument concerns the adequacy of the findings of fact in the order: Section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2008), delineates certain factual findings that must be made in orders addressing motions for reunification....

system, adoption is preferable to guardianship. § 39.621(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). The order here granting

...evidentiary hearing before denying the motion for modification. Petitioner asserts that, as a result, she was denied her due process right to present evidence and testimony in support of her motion. We agree. Once a permanency order is in place, section 39.621(9), 2 Florida Statutes (2014), places the burden on the parent seeking reunification or increased contact with the child: The permanency placement is intended to continue until the...

...See also, Dep’t of Children and Families v. R.A., 980 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). 3  Petitioner further contends, and we agree, that the trial court’s order denying modification fails to contain the findings of fact required by section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2014), which provides: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child....

...and indicated that the guardian ad litem recommended closing the case.1 1 In her sworn motion for modification and reunification, Petitioner describes a variety of actions she took to comply with her reunification case plan and attached seven supporting exhibits. See § 39.621(10)(a)....

...The motion also: details the steps Petitioner has taken to 4  The combined failures to hold an evidentiary hearing and to make written factual findings addressing the requisite factors enumerated in section 39.621(10), constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.2 W.H., 109 So. 3d at 1270. We therefore grant the petition, quash the order under review and remand this cause to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and render an order in compliance with section 39.621 (9) and (10), Florida Statutes. obtain and maintain stable employment and housing; describes the circumstances which initially resulted in the children’s dependency and how those circumstances have been resolved; and avers that Petitioner’s children and the current custodian agree with the modification sought by the motion. See § 39.621(10)(b), (c), (d) and (e)....

...and permanent placement with the Father, that both parents had substantially complied with their case plans, and that it would be in the Child's best interests to remain in the long-term custody of the Father. The Mother timely appealed both orders. Section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2010), provides: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child....

...See L.K. v. 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. It is therefore facially deficient. The order granting the Department's motion is also facially deficient. The order does not include findings on three of the five [2] factors required under section 39.621(10)....

...Under these circumstances, we must reverse the orders on appeal and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must determine whether reunification with the Mother would endanger the child and must consider and address all applicable factors enumerated in section 39.621(10)....

...A hearing was held on the motion but a transcript was not provided to this court due to the inability of the court reporter to find it. The trial court entered an order in which it listed the tasks the Mother was to complete but found she was not in compliance. The court went through the other factors in section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes (2011), which it is required to consider in deciding a parent’s motion for reunification and crossed out the last finding listed, “[t]he mother does/does not pose a risk of endangerment to the welfare of the children.” The trial court denied the Mother’s motion....

...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)....

...y, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child” 3 pursuant to that provision, and that the permanency determination granting custody to KB.’s father instead incorrectly applied the “best interest” factors set forth in section 39.621(10)....

...dy” pending any reunification; under section 39.521(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes (2010), changing custody back to the mother as a permanency disposition should be based on the “best interest of the child” standard and the six factors enumerated in section 39.621(10)(a) through (f); although the mother had “in general” complied with the tasks in her case plan and “the specific circumstances that caused the removal of the children are not present,” K.B....

...clearly enjoyed some stability in her father’s home during the pendency of the proceeding, and she testified that she would prefer to remain in her father’s custody, with visitation allowed for her mother and half-sibling. Nor do we question the general magistrate’s assessment of the “best interest” factors in section 39.621(10)(a) through (f)....

...ll 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. . Section 39.621 is captioned "Permanency determination by the court.” Subsection (10) provides: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification or increased contact with a child on the effect of the decision on the safety, well-being, and physical and emotional health of the child....

...Shortly after this court's affirmance, the mother filed a motion to reopen the case and a supplemental petition to modify. The trial court denied the motion to reopen, *493 finding that the mother's allegations were legally insufficient. We agree. A long-term relative custody order is considered an order of permanency. § 39.621(2)(d), Fla....

...That section required the parent to (1) demonstrate a material change in circumstances, and (2) establish that the return of the child to the parent would be in the child's best interest. [1] Effective July 1, 2006, section 39.622 was repealed. Newly enacted section 39.621(9) provides that a permanent placement is not to be modified unless the circumstances of the permanent placement are no longer in the child's best interest....

...the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the dependency case should be reopened and whether there should be a modification of the order. At the hearing, the parent must demonstrate that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the child is not endangered by the modification. § 39.621(9), Fla....

...the hearing, but in the closed permanent guardianship that pertains to A.S., her children, and V.S., as permanent guardian. A.S. complains that the permanent guardianship was reopened without notice, and cites to the provisions of Florida Statute section 39.621(10)1 and Department of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), 1 Section 39.621(10) reads as follows: The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and may not be disturbed absent a finding by the court that the circumstances of the permanency placement are no longer in the best interest of the child....

...not reopen the permanent guardianship without giving proper notice to the mother and ensuring that she is properly represented by counsel or, at minimum, ensuring that she is informed of her right to counsel in the dependency proceeding. However, section 39.621(10) and B.D. are intended to prescribe the procedure that the trial court must follow when a parent files a motion to reopen a permanent guardianship for the purpose of securing additional time with the minor children or a change in custody....

not been emancipated by order of the court”); § 39.621(10), Fla. Stat. (stating that “permanency placement

...a prospective adoptive household. The trial court rejected the concept that adoption by a third party would be preferable because of the "significant and deep relationship between the child and [his grandmother]." Reviewing the options available in section 39.621(2), [1] the court determined that the goal of the case plan should be changed to placement with a fit and willing relative....

reunification with either parent is inappropriate. See § 39.621(1), Fla. Stat. Clearly, the identity of a child’s

...not less than 3 business days before the disposition hearing."); § 39.602(4)(a) (requiring that the parent must be provided with the Department's case -2- plan at least seventy-two hours before the hearing on court's approval); § 39.621(3)(a) ("At least 3 business days before the permanency hearing, the [D]epartment shall file its judicial review social services report with the court and serve copies of the report on all parties"); § 39.701(2)(b)(1) (requiring that the...

...ary before issuing a judicial review order determining the child’s status. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to provide findings as to why the permanent placement is established without adoption of the child to follow pursuant to section 39.621(6), Florida Statutes (2006); amend the judicial review order to be in compliance with section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2006); amend the judicial review order to reflect the amendment to the case plan; and withdraw the permanent pl...

...n, factual findings as to why reunification would not be in the best interests of her child. She appeals. We reverse. In E.I. v. Department of Children and Families, 979 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we held that a court is obligated to comply with section 39.621(10), requiring the trial court to address and include in the written findings of fact the following six factors: (a) compliance or noncompliance with the case plan; (b) whether the circumstances causing the dependency have been resolve...

...a preference; (e) recommendation of the current custodian; and (f) recommendation of any guardian ad litem. 979 So.2d at 379. Even when it is not an abuse of discretion to deny reunification, we will reverse the order and remand for compliance with section 39.621(10) if the order fails to explicitly address the six factors....

...Dep't of Children and Families, 974 So.2d 495, 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that when a trial court makes a conclusory finding that reunification is not in the best interest of the child, instead of documenting detailed factual findings as required by § 39.621(10), appellate courts *311 should reverse the order and remand for application of the correct law and entry of appropriate factual findings)....

...The trial court may elect to retain jurisdiction over a child even after protective supervision has been terminated, until the child reaches the age of majority. See § 39.013, Fla. Stat. (2006). The trial court elected to retain jurisdiction over T.F. In 2006, the legislature added section 39.621(9)....

...The trial court may elect to retain jurisdiction over a child even after protective supervision has been terminated, until the child reaches the age of majority. See § 39.013, Fla. Stat. (2006). The trial court elected to retain jurisdiction over T.F. In 2006, the legislature added section 39.621(9)....

...ion program, or any other educational placement. See id. 2. See ch. 2018-45, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. (creating § 39.6021(1), (5), Fla. Stat. effective July 1, 2018); ch. 2018-103, §§ 7-8, 9, 12, 33, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.6013, 39.621(5), 39.6221(1), 39.701(2)(d), Fla....

...ing, to consider whether the frequency, duration, manner, and level of engagement of the parent or legal guardian’s visitation with the child meets the requirements of the case plan. See ch. 2018-103, § 8, Laws of Fla. (adding paragraph (d) to § 39.621(5), Fla....

evidentiary basis to support a case plan amendment. See § 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2016); R.N. v. Dep’t of Children

...See Moorman v. Hatfield, 958 So.2d 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); A.L. v. State, 983 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). This time the dispute affects both the constitutional rights of the mother and the permanency of six children in the dependency system. See § 39.621, Fla....

...Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); F.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Because an order terminating supervision does not necessarily end a dependency proceeding, see §§ 39.521, 39.621, Fla....

...There is ample evidence in the record to support this decision. We do agree with the father however, that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by restricting decisions concerning his future contact with his children solely to their discretion. Section 39.621(9) of the Florida Statutes affords the father the unqualified ability to return to the dependency court to seek modification or elimination of any court ordered restrictions on the father’s visitation rights....

...a practical matter, impact the father’s future contacts and relationship with them, the dependency court has a non-delegable duty to consider any motion for modification or for increased contact filed by the father in the future. Id.; see also §39.621, Fla....

...is achieved within one year of her placement into foster care. § 39.001(l)(h). The Florida Legisla *1219 ture has also decreed that “[i]f a child will not be reunited with a parent, adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option.” § 39.621(6) (emphasis added)....

...e findings, of course, were made without any evidence from the proposed permanent guardians, who did not attend the hearing. More than a year before this hearing this court reversed another judge in the Sixth Circuit when the Department did not obey section 39.621(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...Despite the fact that the father’s appellate counsel cited P.P. in the initial brief, the Department has not even acknowledged the existence of this controlling case. As we stated in P.P.: We do not agree that the State properly noticed the mother for the permanency hearing. Section 39.621(3)(a) states: At least 3 business days before the permanency hearing, the department shall file its judicial review social services report with the court and serve copies of the report on all parties....

...he 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). See G.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 985 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Section 39.621(10) provides the following: The court shall base its decision concerning any motion by a parent for reunification ......

...vity 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 .... § 39.621(10), Fla....

...These factors have been characterized as “best interest” factors. See S.V.-R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 77 So.3d 687, 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that trial court “incorrectly applied the ‘best interest’ factors set forth in section 39.621(10)”); C.S....

...Dep’t of Children & Families, 12 So.3d 309, 310 (Fla. 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)....

PER CURIAM. The father, B.R., appeals from an order placing his child, N.R., in permanent guardianship. Based upon the State’s proper concession of error, we reverse. Section 39.621(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), requires the Department to file and serve, at least three business days before the permanency hearing, a judicial review social services report which includes a recommended permanency goal and an explanation as to why such a recommendation is in the best interest of the child....

...The record on appeal is limited as to the procedural history of the involvement of the Department of Children and Families with T.A.S. and R.A.S. However, the parties acknowledge in their filings in this court that at the time of the motions to vacate, the child was in permanent placement. See § 39.621(7), Fla. Stat. (listing permanent guardianship as a permanent placement). Because the motions to vacate were denied without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, the trial court erred. See § 39.621(10)(a), Fla....

...It is the intent of the Florida Legislature to achieve permanency for every child in the dependency system. § 39.001(l)(h). When it is determined that reunification with either parent is inappropriate, the court must make a permanency determination for the child. § 39.621(1). When reunification is not an option, adoption is the preferred permanency option. § 39.621(2). However, if adoption is not in the child’s best interests, the court may consider other permanency options, such as guardianship pursuant to chapter 744, Florida Statutes, long-term custody, long-term licensed custody, and independent living. § 39.621(3)....

...Therefore, permanency was achieved. The permanency placement is intended to continue until the child reaches the age of majority and is not to be disturbed absent a finding that the circumstances of the permanent placement are no longer in the best interests of the child. § 39.621(3)....

...of what remains of the bond between parent and child.” S.M., 202 So. 3d at 780. The Court also noted that the Fourth District’s interpretation is “more consistent with the Legislature’s permanency goals in dependency cases” set forth in section 39.621(3), Florida Statutes....

...y of a permanent guardianship or any other immediate, permanent, out-of-home placement of a child. A permanency determination in this case, on the other hand, would be governed by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.425 (“Permanency Hearings”), section 39.621, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanency determination by the court”), and section 39.6221, Florida Statutes (2021) (“Permanent guardianship of a dependent child”). The trial court’s order scheduled the subject hearing as a...

...mended permanency goal, a date for the permanent guardianship hearing, or explanation of why permanent guardianship would be in the best interest of child, and the mother had over a month remaining to comply with case plan). DCF and GAL point to section 39.621(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), in support of their argument for affirmance, contending that it allows a change in a permanency goal at any time, and that they complied with the statute’s notice requirements....

...pies of the report on all parties. The report must include a recommended permanency goal for the child, suggest changes to the case plan, if needed, and describe why the recommended goal is in the best interest of the child. § 39.621(4)(a), Fla....

...plan goal with entry of a permanent guardianship. Moreover, as discussed, where the hearing is billed as a “judicial review,” which is governed by section 39.701, the mother would not have been on notice that the hearing was proceeding as a permanency hearing under section 39.621. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. 3 CONNER, C.J., CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur....

...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, if one has been appointed. § 39.621(10).6 Orders granting reunification in the absence of written findings addressing the best interest factors have been held to constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law....

...Orders granting reunification which are not supported by competent substantial evidence also constitute a departure from the 6 Effective July 1, 2017, the best interest factors have been renumbered from subsection (10) to subsection (11) of section 39.621....

...would be endangered by reunification but also whether reunification was in I.N.'s best interest was a departure from the essential requirements of the law. The court also departed from the essential requirements of the law because, while its written order addresses the best interest factors of section 39.621, its findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence. B....

...Under the circumstances of this case the most pertinent factors are (a), (b), (e), and (f), and thus we focus on the evidence as to each of those 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)....

...the essential requirements of the law. III. Conclusion Because the dependency court failed to apply the standard for reunification, among other applicable statutory provisions, and because its findings under the best interest factors of section 39.621 are not supported by competent substantial evidence, the court departed from the essential requirements of the law in granting the request for reunification, causing irreparable harm to I.N....

...appeals here — does *999 not indicate that A.M. supported a motion for reunification with the statutorily required “demonstrat[ion] that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child[ren are] not endangered by the modification.” § 39.621(9), Fla....

...be considered as a factor weighing against termination of parental rights.” § 39.810(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Since the child’s mother’s parental rights were terminated earlier, the “child will not be reunited with a parent, [and] adoption, under chapter 63, is the primary permanency option.” § 39.621(6), Fla....

...ncy and whether they have been resolved, the stability and length of the child’s placement, the child’s preference if the child is able to express one, the custodian’s recommendation, and the guardian ad litem’s recommendation. Id.) see also § 39.621(9)-(10), Fla....

...surrenders once she receives a written order. If that were the case, and if her consent to surrender the child is reversed on appeal, her current appeal would be relevant. Therefore, this issue is not moot, and we consider the appeal on the merits. Section 39.621(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), allows adoption as a permanency goal option only “if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed.” Here, the Department and the Guardian both concede error because a petition for termination of the Mother’s parental rights was not filed....

...surrenders once she receives a written order. If that were the case, and if her consent to surrender the child is reversed on appeal, her current appeal would be relevant. Therefore, this issue is not moot, and we consider the appeal on the merits. Section 39.621(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), allows adoption as a permanency goal option only "if a petition for termination of parental rights has been or will be filed." Here, the Department and the Guardian both concede error because a petition for termination of the Mother's parental rights was not filed....