S.C.P. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.C.P. v. Department of Children & Families

220 So. 3d 1290, 2017 WL 2960587, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9989

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2017

Docket17-0979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 So. 3d 1290 (S.C.P. 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

S.C.P. v. Department of Children & Families, 220 So. 3d 1290, 2017 WL 2960587, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9989 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

S.C.P., the Mother, petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s March 30, 2017 order that changed the goal of her case plan from reunification to permanent guardianship. We grant the petition and quash the order.

The Mother’s children were adjudicated dependent on February 10, 2016. On January 4, 2017, the trial court accepted a case plan which set forth the primary goal of reunification. On March 30, 2017, however, the trial court entered the order under review. The order found that the Mother was in compliance with her case plan but nevertheless, it changed the goal from reunification to permanent guardianship. This change could prevent the. Mother from eventually reuniting with her children.

The governing rules and statutes contemplate an evidentiary basis to support a case plan amendment. See § 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2016); R.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 25 So.3d 697, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“Rule 8.420 contemplates an eviden-tiary basis to support a case plan amendment”). The Department properly and commendably concedes that the trial court order lacks an adequate evidentiary basis to support the case plan amendment, and the guardian ad litem also indicated that it has no argument against-granting the petition. Based upon our independent review of the record and the Department’s confes *1291 sion of error, we grant the petition and quash the order.

Petition granted.

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

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

S.C.P., the Mother, petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s March 30, 2017 order that changed the goal of her case plan from reunification to permanent guardianship. We grant the petition and quash the order.

The Mother’s children were adjudicated dependent on February 10, 2016. On January 4, 2017, the trial court accepted a case plan which set forth the primary goal of reunification. On March 30, 2017, however, the trial court entered the order under review. The order found that the Mother was in compliance with her case plan but nevertheless, it changed the goal from reunification to permanent guardianship. This change could prevent the. Mother from eventually reuniting with her children.

The governing rules and statutes contemplate an evidentiary basis to support a case plan amendment. See § 39.621, Fla. Stat. (2016); R.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 25 So.3d 697, 700 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (“Rule 8.420 contemplates an eviden-tiary basis to support a case plan amendment”). The Department properly and commendably concedes that the trial court order lacks an adequate evidentiary basis to support the case plan amendment, and the guardian ad litem also indicated that it has no argument against-granting the petition. Based upon our independent review of the record and the Department’s confes *1291 sion of error, we grant the petition and quash the order.

Petition granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 So. 3d 1290, 2017 WL 2960587, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scp-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack