M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services

5 So. 3d 809, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2009

DocketNo. 2D08-1719

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 So. 3d 809 (M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services) 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

M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 5 So. 3d 809, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2722 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS M. GALLEN, Associate Senior Judge.

M.M., the Father, seeks review of the trial court’s order which placed A.M. in a permanent guardianship and terminated protective supervision over the child. The Father argues that the trial court erred in failing to make written findings explaining why reunification was not possible. The Department and the Guardian ad Litem concede error. We find these concessions to be proper because written findings are required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).

Ordinarily, we would simply reverse and remand for the court to make the necessary written findings in compliance with section 39.6221(2)(a). However, both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem also concede that, even if the court had complied with section 39.6221(2)(a), competent, substantial evidence did not support A.M.’s placement in a permanent guardianship. We find these concessions to be proper because the Department did not meet its burden of proving that reunification would endanger the child. See C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Therefore, the order placing the child in a permanent guardianship is reversed. On remand, the [810]*810trial court should grant the Father’s motion for reunification.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

THOMAS M. GALLEN, Associate Senior Judge.

M.M., the Father, seeks review of the trial court’s order which placed A.M. in a permanent guardianship and terminated protective supervision over the child. The Father argues that the trial court erred in failing to make written findings explaining why reunification was not possible. The Department and the Guardian ad Litem concede error. We find these concessions to be proper because written findings are required by section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).

Ordinarily, we would simply reverse and remand for the court to make the necessary written findings in compliance with section 39.6221(2)(a). However, both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem also concede that, even if the court had complied with section 39.6221(2)(a), competent, substantial evidence did not support A.M.’s placement in a permanent guardianship. We find these concessions to be proper because the Department did not meet its burden of proving that reunification would endanger the child. See C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Therefore, the order placing the child in a permanent guardianship is reversed. On remand, the [810]*810trial court should grant the Father’s motion for reunification.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 So. 3d 809, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mm-v-department-of-children-family-services-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack