Court Opinion

ID: 9904655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:43:30.393969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.521737
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                     FIFTH DISTRICT

                                  NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                  FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                  DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM,

           Petitioner,
v.                                           Case No. 5D22-0217
                                             LT Case No. 2019-DP-33
SARAH CAMPBELL, ADOPTION
ENTITY, AND DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

         Respondents.
_________________________________/
Opinion filed April 29, 2022

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order
from the Circuit Court for Osceola County,
Diego Madrigal, III, Judge.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide
Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee,
Assistant Director of Appeals, of
Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office,
Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Sarah Campbell, of Jay & Campbell, PLLC,
Stuart, for Respondent, Sarah Campbell,
Adoption Entity.

Kelly Schaeffer, of Children’s Legal
Services, Bradenton, for Respondent,
Department of Children and Families.
PER CURIAM.
     In this termination of parental rights proceeding, the Guardian Ad Litem

Program petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash an order that transferred

custody of J.G., a now three-year-old child (the “Child”), to the prospective

adoptive parents chosen by the natural parents. We find that the trial court

departed from the essential requirements of the law 1 when ordering the

transfer of custody and that this error presents an immediate threat of

irreparable harm to the Child.

     In March 2019, the Child was sheltered by the Department of Children

and Families (“the Department”) when he was five days old due to his

parents’ substance abuse and mental health issues. The Child was initially

     1
        A “departure from the essential requirements of the law” requires “a
violation of a clearly established principle of law.” Dodgen v. Grijalva, 331
So. 3d 679, 684 (Fla. 2021) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843
So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003)).

           “[C]learly established law” can derive from a variety
           of legal sources, including recent controlling case
           law, rules of court, statutes, and constitutional law.
           Thus, in addition to case law dealing with the same
           issue of law, an interpretation or application of a
           statute, a procedural rule, or a constitutional
           provision may be the basis for granting certiorari
           review.

Dodgen, 331 So. 3d at 684 (quoting Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 890).

                                     2
placed with his maternal grandmother but two months later, he was placed

with foster parents, with whom the Child has lived ever since, while the

Department pursued a termination of parental rights (“TPR”) proceeding

against the Child’s natural parents. Approximately two weeks before the final

TPR hearing, the natural parents executed surrenders of their parental rights

and consents to adopt with Attorney Sarah J. Campbell, acting as an

adoption entity. The consents stated that the natural parents desired the

Child to be adopted by his paternal grandfather and his wife (the

“Grandparents”), who live in New York.        The adoption entity moved to

intervene in the TPR proceeding, and the trial court allowed the intervention

pursuant to section 63.082(6)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), and found the

consents to be valid and binding.

      The adoption entity then filed a motion to transfer custody of the Child

to the Grandparents pursuant to section 63.082(6)(d), Florida Statutes

(2021), which both the Department and the Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”)

opposed. During a multi-day hearing on the motion to transfer custody, the

trial court heard testimony, which the court thoroughly summarized in its

detailed order on the motion. The witnesses included bonding experts, who

offered differing opinions on the effect the transfer of custody would have on

the Child; the paternal grandfather’s wife, who desired to adopt the Child; the

                                      3
Child’s foster mother; the Department’s dependency case manager; and the

GAL. The trial court also considered the deposition testimony of the Child’s

natural mother, who expressed a desire to reunite with the Child. The

paternal grandfather’s wife testified to the Grandparents’ efforts to adopt the

Child and their visits with the Child.

      The Child’s foster mother testified to the love and affection between

the Child and his foster parents that has developed since his placement with

them in May 2019 and to the Child’s relationship and frequent visits with his

half-sibling, who lives nearby. The foster mother stated their wish to adopt

the Child after the TPR proceedings are completed. The Department’s case

manager testified that the Department opposes the custody transfer due to

the bond she observed between the Child and his foster parents and local

half-sibling. Similarly, the GAL opposed the transfer after observing the

Child’s interactions with his foster parents indicating love and affection; she

also expressed a negative view of the Child’s bonding assessment with the

Grandparents, which she observed.

      After the hearing, the trial court rendered its comprehensive order on

the motion to transfer custody. The trial court stated that the motion was

controlled by legal authority contained in the Florida Constitution, Florida

Statutes, and case law, and the trial court believed these “to be at odds with

                                         4
each other.”     The court outlined the statutory process involved in

interventions for purposes of adoption contained in section 63.082(6) and

diligently addressed the best interests factors contained in section

63.082(6)(e), Florida Statutes (2021). It interpreted the plain language of the

statute to require a determination that the prospective adoptive parents are

appropriate and that the change of placement is in the child’s best interests,

which, in this case it believed, would invite a comparison of the options

available to the court, including transferring custody to the Grandparents or

keeping the Child in his current placement.

      The trial court concluded that if it were writing on a clean slate, it would

not find that a change was in the Child’s best interests based solely on the

plain language of the statutory factors. It did not believe, however, that it

was free to apply its plain language interpretation of the statute because of

case law from the Fourth District Court articulating the standard to be applied

by the court differently. See W.K. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 230 So. 3d 905,

908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (stating that “it is not the court’s role to determine

which placement would be better for the child” and “the ‘best interest’

analysis requires a determination that the birth parent’s choice of prospective

adoptive parents is appropriate and protects the well-being of the child; not

that it is the best choice as evaluated by the court or the Department in light

                                        5
of other alternatives”). Although the trial court believed this language in W.K.

to be incorrect, it adhered to what it concluded was W.K.’s binding precedent

and, accordingly, found that the Grandparents were qualified to adopt and

the natural parents’ choice was appropriate, although not the best choice.

The trial court then granted the motion to transfer custody to the

Grandparents but stayed the order pending this Court’s review.

      We find that the trial court’s order departed from the essential

requirements of the law, causing irreparable harm to the Child if custody

were to be transferred. See Guardian ad Litem Program v. R.A., 995 So. 2d

1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (granting certiorari and quashing order granting

motion for change of child’s placement when trial court failed to follow

statutory directives). We begin with the plain language of section 63.082(6)’s

text. See Ervin v. Collins, 85 So. 2d 852, 855 (Fla. 1956) (observing that

plain language of text is beginning point of analysis). “The words of a

governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their

context, is what the text means.” Advis. Op. to Gov. Re: Implementation of

Amend. 4, the Voting Restoration Amend., 288 So. 3d 1070, 1078 (Fla. 2020)

(quoting Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation

of Legal Texts 56 (2012)). Consequently, “[w]here the language of the

[statute] ‘is clear, unambiguous, and addresses the matter in issue, then it

                                       6
must be enforced as written . . . .’” Israel v. DeSantis, 269 So. 3d 491, 495

(Fla. 2019) (quoting Fla. Soc’y of Ophthalmology v. Fla. Optometric Ass’n,

489 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 1986)). Applying these interpretive principles,

we hold that the trial court incorrectly disregarded its analysis of section

63.082(6)(e)’s factors in favor of its interpretation of W.K.’s statement

regarding the standard to be employed in deciding motions to transfer

custody.

      Section 63.082(6) permits an “adoption entity” to intervene in a

dependency case where parental rights have not yet been terminated and a

parent has executed a consent for placement of a minor with an adoption

entity or qualified prospective adoptive parents. § 63.082(6)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat.

(2021). In this case, both parents signed consents for adoption by the

Grandparents, and the adoption entity filed the motion to transfer custody

prior to the termination of either parent’s parental rights. The trial court then

was required to conduct the evidentiary hearing pursuant to section

63.082(6)(c) to determine whether the Grandparents were properly qualified

to adopt the Child and whether the adoption was in the best interests of the

Child, “after consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in

paragraph (e).” § 63.082(6)(d), Fla. Stat. In turn, section 63.082(6)(e) lists

                                       7
eight non-exclusive factors 2 the court must consider when determining

whether the best interests of a child are served by transferring custody of the

child to the prospective adoptive parent selected by the parents. § 63.082(e),

Fla. Stat. (requiring that “the court shall consider and weigh all relevant

factors, including, but not limited to . . . .” (emphasis added)). These eight

factors are:

               1. The permanency offered;

               2. The established bonded relationship between the
               child and the current caregiver in any potential
               adoptive home in which the child has been residing;

               3. The stability of the potential adoptive home in
               which the child has been residing as well as the
               desirability of maintaining continuity of placement;

               4. The importance of            maintaining    sibling
               relationships, if possible;

      2
        Prior to 2016, section 63.082(6)(e) contained only four specified
factors without the current requirement that courts consider “all factors”:

               In determining whether the best interests of the child
               are served by transferring the custody of the minor
               child to the prospective adoptive parent selected by
               the parent, the court shall consider the rights of the
               parent to determine an appropriate placement for the
               child, the permanency offered, the child’s bonding
               with any potential adoptive home that the child has
               been residing in, and the importance of maintaining
               sibling relationships, if possible.

§ 63.082(6)(e), Fla. Stat. (2015).

                                         8
            5. The reasonable preferences and wishes of the
            child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient
            maturity, understanding, and experience to express
            a preference;

            6. Whether a petition for termination of parental rights
            has been filed pursuant to s. 39.806(1)(f), (g), or (h);

            7. What is best for the child; and

            8. The right of the parent to determine an appropriate
            placement for the child.

§ 63.082(6)(e), Fla. Stat.

      After weighing the evidence and applying these eight factors, the trial

court concluded that the Child’s best interests would not be served by

transferring custody to the Grandparents. However, the trial court then

erroneously elevated the right of the natural parents to determine the

appropriate placement for the Child (the eighth factor in section 63.082(6)(e))

above all other factors and disregarded what it believed was best for the

Child (the seventh factor in section 63.082(6)(e)), citing W.K. as requiring

that it do so. This was improper, as the Third District Court has explained:

            Although parents have a fundamental right to raise
            their children, and section 63.082(6)(e) provides the
            parents with the statutory right to select a prospective
            adoptive parent or parents for the child, that right is
            not absolute. Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab.
            Servs., 577 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla. 1991) (holding that
            a parent’s fundamental right to raise his or her child
            is “subject to the overriding principle that it is the

                                       9
            ultimate welfare or best interest of the child which
            must prevail”) (citing In re Camm, 294 So. 2d 318,
            320 (Fla. 1974)); P.K. v. Dep’t of Children & Families,
            927 So. 2d 131, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Thus, the
            wishes of the parents are a factor, but those wishes
            must be considered with the other three [now seven]
            factors, which relate to a determination of what is in
            the best interest of the child.

E.Q. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 208 So. 3d 1258, 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

(emphasis added).

      In W.K., the Fourth District Court’s straightforward holding was to affirm

the trial court’s order transferring custody to the prospective adoptive parents

“because competent substantial evidence support[ed] the trial court’s

decision.” 3 230 So. 3d at 906. We note that in summarizing “the ‘best

interest’ analysis” to be employed by the courts, W.K. relied on In re S.N.W.,

912 So. 2d 368, 373 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that, in deference to

parent’s “constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of their

children,” a trial court may not compare the selected prospective adoptive

parents with other placements the court or Department might otherwise

choose), a case relying on a prior version of section 63.082 that did not

contain the “non-exclusive” language of the current statute, instead requiring

      The Fourth District Court’s jurisdiction to review the order transferring
      3

custody, presumably a nonfinal order, is not clear from its opinion.

                                      10
only a specified four-factor analysis. 4        Moreover, there are notable

differences between W.K. and this case. The Department in W.K. did not

object to the change in custody (here, it did) “and it was undisputed that the

prospective adoptive parents were an appropriate placement for the child.”

230 So. 3d at 908. Further, unlike this case, nowhere in W.K. is there an

indication that the trial court found that it was not in the child’s best interests

to transfer custody.5

      The current version of section 63.082(6) is clear that when considering

a motion to transfer custody of a dependent child who is under the

supervision of the Department, the trial court must consider the wishes of the

natural parent or parents, if their parental rights have not been terminated,

and weigh those wishes with the other seven factors articulated in section

63.082(6)(e), along with “all relevant factors.” § 63.082(6)(e), Fla. Stat.; see

      4
       In In re Adoption of K.A.G., 152 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), a
case where section 63.082 was inapplicable because the child was not in
the Department’s custody, this Court expressed in a footnote in dicta its
approval of In re S.N.W.’s best interests analysis. As noted above, S.N.W.
analyzed a prior version of the statute.
      5
         W.K. also states that all of the factors in section 63.082(6)(e) should
be considered without one overriding the others. 230 So. 3d at 908 (noting
that trial court correctly found that child’s bond with foster parents “did not
override all of the other statutory factors” and that mother’s right to choose
adoptive family was properly “recognized as one of the factors in the
statute”). The trial court’s order in this case improperly allows certain factors
to override others.

                                        11
also E.Q., 208 So. 3d at 1261 (“It is therefore clear that when considering a

motion by a parent to transfer a dependent child, who has been placed with

the department or a legal custodian, to a relative, the trial court must consider

the wishes of the parent or parents, if their parental rights have not been

terminated, and weigh those wishes with the other . . . factors articulated in

section 63.082(6), which relate to the best interests of the child.”). The trial

court correctly followed this statutory directive and entered an order with

factual findings under section 63.082(6)(e).         However, based on its

interpretation of W.K.’s statement about the court’s role in determining a

custody transfer to prospective adoptive parents, the trial court reluctantly

ordered custody transferred to the Grandparents, even though it had

concluded that this transfer was not in the Child’s best interests. Its ultimate

conclusion inappropriately elevated one factor over the others and

constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law causing

irreparable harm. Therefore, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash

the order on review, and remand the matter to the trial court for further

proceedings applying the correct law.

     PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED for further
proceedings.

LAMBERT, C.J., TRAVER and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.

                                       12