L.C., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMarch 4, 2020
Docket3D20-0102
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 4, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-0102
Lower Tribunal No. 18-15287
________________
L.C., The Mother,
Petitioner,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Jason E. Dimitris, Judge.
Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third
Region and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for petitioner.
Karla Perkins, for Department of Children and Families; Laura J. Lee, and
Thomasina F. Moore, for Guardian ad Litem Program (Tallahassee), for
respondents.
Before SALTER, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
L.C., the Mother of two-year-old L.C.A., petitions for a writ of certiorari
quashing an order on judicial review and permanency review and an order approving
a modified case plan, each entered December 12, 2019.1 L.C.A. was adjudicated
dependent in July 2018.
We deny the petition, based on: (a) the record before us; (b) sections 39.522(2)
(reunification must not be detrimental to the child’s safety, well-being, and physical,
mental, and emotional health), and 39.6011(2)(d) (twelve-month timeframe for
compliance with the case plan), Florida Statutes (2019); and (c) M.I. v. Dep’t of
Children & Families, 45 So. 3d 878, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010):
The facts of this case clearly exemplify the policy reasons behind the
court’s authority to amend the case plan goal at any time. The case plan
is for the benefit of the child and the goal is permanency. When a
parent’s performance demonstrates not only failure to comply with a
case plan, but also that the child’s needs are best served by a change in
goal, the trial court must have discretion to amend the goal to meet the
needs of the child. To do less would put the interest of the parent ahead
of the child.
Petition denied.
1
L.C.A.’s Father, F.C.A., also objected to the orders sought to be quashed; his
separate petition for certiorari is pending in this Court as Case No. 3D20-0087.
2