T.A.S., R.A.S. v. Florida Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.A.S., R.A.S. v. Florida Department of Children and Families

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 2024

Docket2023-1430

StatusPublished

This text of T.A.S., R.A.S. v. Florida Department of Children and Families (T.A.S., R.A.S. v. Florida Department of Children and 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

T.A.S., R.A.S. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2023-1430 _____________________________

T.A.S., Father of R.A.S., Minor Child,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. David J. Oberliesen, Judge.

February 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

T.A.S. is the father of R.A.S. In 2020, R.A.S. was placed in a permanent guardianship at the conclusion of a dependency case. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2020). T.A.S. was ordered to have no contact with R.A.S, but his parental rights were not terminated. See § 39.6221(6), Fla. Stat.

Thereafter, T.A.S. sought to vacate the no-contact order. Here, T.A.S. appeals a final order which denied his motion and amended motion to vacate the no-contact order. 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. Stat. (2022). When a child is in a permanent placement and “a parent who has not had his or her parental rights terminated makes a motion for reunification or increased contact with the child, 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.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motions to vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

T.A.S., pro se, Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2023-1430 _____________________________

T.A.S., Father of R.A.S., Minor Child,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. David J. Oberliesen, Judge.

February 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

T.A.S. is the father of R.A.S. In 2020, R.A.S. was placed in a permanent guardianship at the conclusion of a dependency case. See § 39.6221, Fla. Stat. (2020). T.A.S. was ordered to have no contact with R.A.S, but his parental rights were not terminated. See § 39.6221(6), Fla. Stat.

Thereafter, T.A.S. sought to vacate the no-contact order. Here, T.A.S. appeals a final order which denied his motion and amended motion to vacate the no-contact order. 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. Stat. (2022). When a child is in a permanent placement and “a parent who has not had his or her parental rights terminated makes a motion for reunification or increased contact with the child, 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.” Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motions to vacate, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

T.A.S., pro se, Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

T.A.S., R.A.S. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tas-ras-v-florida-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2024.