J.P. v. V.P.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.P. v. V.P.

196 So. 3d 1283, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12058, 2016 WL 4205359

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 2016

DocketNo. 4D16-1590

StatusPublished

This text of 196 So. 3d 1283 (J.P. v. V.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J.P. v. V.P., 196 So. 3d 1283, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12058, 2016 WL 4205359 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The lower court terminated protective supervision of the minor children following achievement of the permanency goal of reunification with the father, but retained jurisdiction to decide an issue regarding the children’s visitation with the mother. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a written order deciding the visitation issue. The father appealed.

Subsequently, the father moved to remand for the lower court to enter a legally sufficient order, stating the trial court’s written order implementing a visitation schedule does not “contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law” as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.260(a). The mother filed a notice stating she was unopposed to remanding this case. We treat the mother’s notice as a confession of error. See S.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 4D16-858, 2016 WL 3919070 (Fla. 4th DCA July 20, 2016).

We accept the mother’s confession of error and reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order that complies with rule 8.260(a). See J.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 976 So.2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (remanding a post-disposition order that failed to comply with rule 8.260(a) for the trial court to make specific findings of fact).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The lower court terminated protective supervision of the minor children following achievement of the permanency goal of reunification with the father, but retained jurisdiction to decide an issue regarding the children’s visitation with the mother. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a written order deciding the visitation issue. The father appealed.

Subsequently, the father moved to remand for the lower court to enter a legally sufficient order, stating the trial court’s written order implementing a visitation schedule does not “contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law” as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.260(a). The mother filed a notice stating she was unopposed to remanding this case. We treat the mother’s notice as a confession of error. See S.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 4D16-858, 2016 WL 3919070 (Fla. 4th DCA July 20, 2016).

We accept the mother’s confession of error and reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order that complies with rule 8.260(a). See J.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 976 So.2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (remanding a post-disposition order that failed to comply with rule 8.260(a) for the trial court to make specific findings of fact).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, MAY and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 So. 3d 1283, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12058, 2016 WL 4205359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jp-v-vp-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack