Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): section 39.6221(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), requires the circuit court to “[slpecify the frequency and nature of visitation or contact between the child and his or her parents.” Here, the court’s order specifies that K.B. shall have a minimum of one hour per week supervised visitation, with additional visitation at the permanent guardian’s' discretion. The order also gives the guardian discretion to permit unsupervised visitation upon determining that KB. has achieved the sobriety and • stability necessary to keep the child safe. However, it does not leave the frequency and nature of visitation to the guardian’s complete discretion. Therefore, the order comports with section 39.6221(2)(c). Cf. S.W-R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 64 So.3d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing (B) holding an upward departure under ussg  5k22 was not error or an abuse of discretion where the victim suffered permanent and lifethreatening injuries (C) holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order (D) holding the permanent guardianship order that provided for visitation biweekly for an hour to an hour and a half or at the discretion of the caregiver did not comply with section 3962212c because it placed complete discretion concerning the frequency and duration of visitation with the permanent guardian (E) holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse
Output (English): holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order