L.G. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.G. v. Department of Children & Families

803 So. 2d 899, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 25

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-2369

StatusPublished

This text of 803 So. 2d 899 (L.G. v. Department of Children & Families) 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

L.G. v. Department of Children & Families, 803 So. 2d 899, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 25 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, R.B., J.

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) instituted dependency proceedings regarding T.K., a child. L.G., T.K.’s mother, consented to an adjudication of dependency and concedes that placing the child with her father in Japan was proper. She contends, however, that the trial court erred when it refused to require the father to post a bond to ensure the child’s return to the United States if reunification with [900]*900the mother is ordered by the trial court at some time in the future. We disagree.

Chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes (2000) imposes no requirement that the non-offending parent post a bond to secure compliance with future court orders. This is true regardless of whether the child is placed in Miami, California or Japan. We should not require a non-offending parent, with whom a dependent child is placed, to post a bond as a pre-condition of that placement when the Legislature has not done so. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ORFINGER, R.B., J.

The Department of Children and Families (DCF) instituted dependency proceedings regarding T.K., a child. L.G., T.K.’s mother, consented to an adjudication of dependency and concedes that placing the child with her father in Japan was proper. She contends, however, that the trial court erred when it refused to require the father to post a bond to ensure the child’s return to the United States if reunification with [900]*900the mother is ordered by the trial court at some time in the future. We disagree.

Chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes (2000) imposes no requirement that the non-offending parent post a bond to secure compliance with future court orders. This is true regardless of whether the child is placed in Miami, California or Japan. We should not require a non-offending parent, with whom a dependent child is placed, to post a bond as a pre-condition of that placement when the Legislature has not done so. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

803 So. 2d 899, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lg-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2002.