DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

T.B., the Father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-4060

[October 28, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Peter Evans, Acting Circuit Judge; L.T. Case No. 2011 DP 

300316.

Andrew A. Holness of Law Offices of Andrew A. Holness, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Rosemarie Farrell, Orlando, for appellee.

Patricia Murphy Propheter, Sanford, for appellee Guardian ad Litem 

Program.

WARNER, J.

A father appeals an order placing his children in a permanent 

guardianship with a relative and terminating protective supervision by the 

Department of Children and Families. The order also modified a visitation 

plan for the father because of the guardian’s impending move out of state. 

The father claims that the court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing and make findings of fact to support establishing the permanent 

guardianship and modifying the visitation. As the order fails to include 

the required findings of fact as to the establishment of the permanent 

guardianship, and a hearing is required to permit the guardian to relocate, 

we reverse.

The Department filed a Petition for Shelter for the father’s two minor 

children based upon allegations of neglect by the mother, for which 

probable cause was found. The father, who was not married to the mother, 

was granted visitation. Later, the court modified custody to place the 
2

children with a relative. The Department filed a Petition for Dependency, 

and the children were adjudicated dependent. As to the father, the order 

found that he had abandoned the children by failing to take action to 

prevent the neglect by the mother. The father was given a case plan, with 

which he complied.

As he had successfully completed his case plan, the father sought 

reunification with his children. The court, however, denied reunification 

because the father allowed his adult son to live with him, and the son was 

on pre-trial release for alleged sexual offenses against minors.

The Department moved for an order accepting a case plan with a goal 

of permanent guardianship and terminating supervision, because 

concerns for the safety of the children still remained, including the fact 

that the father’s adult son still lived with him, making the father’s home 

inappropriate for the minor children. About nine months later, the court 

entered a confusing order which both granted a permanent guardianship 

but also required the Department to file a case plan with the goal of 

permanent guardianship and a goal date several months later. The 

Department retained protective supervision but placed the children with 

the permanent guardian. It also established a visitation schedule. 

Although the Department contends this was an appealable order 

establishing the guardianship, we conclude that this was not the final 

order.

Judicial reviews continued after the entry of this order. Those orders 

showed that the father was compliant with his case plan tasks. Then, 

several months later, at another judicial review hearing, the Department 

sought to have the court enter a modified visitation schedule, because the 

permanent guardian was moving out of state with the children. It also 

sought to close the case and terminate supervision. Appearing at the 

hearing, the father tried to explain the situation with his adult son, 

implying that nothing had come of the case against his son, yet this was 

still holding up his ability to have his daughters with him. Nevertheless, 

the father’s attorney did not seek, nor did the court permit, a second 

hearing on reunification. The father’s attorney, however, objected to the 

permanent guardian moving out of state and depriving the father of the 

continuing contact he was enjoying with his daughters. The attorney 

contended that the court should apply section 61.13001, Florida Statutes 

(2014), regarding relocation of the child.

The court ultimately rejected that position. Without holding an 

evidentiary hearing, it entered a final order placing the children in a 

permanent guardianship and terminating the Department’s protective 
3

supervision. In the order, the court found that the relocation statute in 

Chapter 61 did not apply in permanent guardianship situations. It then 

made conclusory statements regarding the need for the permanent 

guardianship without specific facts showing why the father was not fit to 

care for his daughters. It adjusted a visitation schedule for the father 

because of the permanent guardian’s relocation out of state. It is from this 

order that the father appeals.

Section 39.6221(2), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that in a written 

order establishing a permanent guardianship, the court must “[l]ist the 

circumstances or reasons why the child’s parents are not fit to care for the 

child and why reunification is not possible by referring to specific findings 

of fact made in its order adjudicating the child dependent or by making 

separate findings of fact.” § 39.6221(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). “A general 

reference to the dependency findings does not satisfy the statute.” In re 

R.C., 118 So. 3d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing J.S. v. Dep’t of 

Children & Family Servs., 18 So. 3d 712, 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)).

Here, the order states “[t]he parents are not fit to care for the children 

and reunification is not possible because the circumstances from which 

the [c]ourt previously based its finding that the children are dependent 

have not been ameliorated.” Similar language has been rejected as 

inadequate under the statute. See, e.g., In re R.C., 118 So. 3d 924, 925 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2013); M.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 86 So. 3d 

1149, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). The written order does not comply with 

the statutory requirements of section 39.6221(2)(a), Florida Statutes 

(2014). Moreover, the reasons set forth in the order of dependency do not 

appear to be the same reasons upon which the court denied reunification.

We reverse the order on permanent guardianship for the court to make 

the necessary findings of fact required by the statute. It is not clear to us 

from the record that an evidentiary hearing was ever held on the 

permanent guardianship petition.1 If a hearing was conducted, at which 

testimony was taken regarding the necessary findings, then the court can 

rely on it to craft a new order on the permanent guardianship. If no 

hearing was ever held, then the court will have to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing to establish the necessary facts to support the guardianship.

But it is clear that no hearing was held on the relocation, over the 

1 We cannot tell whether a hearing was held when the permanent guardian was 

first appointed or at any subsequent judicial review where the court may have 

received the necessary evidence to support the required findings of fact.
4

objection of the father. As the father points out, a determination of the 

children’s best interests regarding the relocation is necessary. Contrary 

to the court’s conclusion, compliance with the provisions of section 

61.13001, Florida Statutes (2014), regarding relocation of a child, is

required, even in a permanent guardianship situation. Section 

61.13001(1)(a), Florida Statutes, defines “child,” for the purposes of the 

Parental Relocation with a Child statute, as meaning “any person who is 

under the jurisdiction of a state court pursuant to the Uniform Child 

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [(“UCCJEA”)] . . . .” It defines 

“relocation” as meaning the “change in location of the . . . parent or other 

person . . . .” § 61.13001(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). “Other person” 

includes “an individual who is not the parent, but with whom the child 

resides pursuant to court order . . . .” Further, the UCCJEA applies to 

“child custody proceedings,” which are defined as:

a proceeding in which the legal custody, physical custody, 

residential care, or visitation with respect to a child is an 

issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, separation, 

neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, 

termination of parental rights, and protection from domestic 

violence . . . . 

§ 61.503(4), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added).

Thus, the Parental Relocation with a Child statute applies to any child 

to which the UCCJEA is applicable, and the UCCJEA is applicable to 

guardianship proceedings. Therefore, these children are subject to the 

provisions of the parental relocation statute, and a hearing is required 

regarding the best interest of the children with respect to the guardian’s 

relocation.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CONNER, J., and LEVEY COHEN, MARDI, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.