Court Opinion

ID: 9942675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 18:04:56.780079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:24.345015
License: Public Domain

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.

                                  2