Coy v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 92-3140

Citation623 So.2d 792
Decision Date20 August 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-3140,92-3140
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D1847 Robert COY and Deborah Coy, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Richard J. D'Amico, Ormond Beach, for appellants.

Ellen D. Phillips, Asst. Dist. Legal Counsel, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PETERSON, Judge.

Robert and Deborah Coy appeal an "Order on Judicial Review" dated November 18, 1992 which ordered their two boys, ages eight and fifteen, to remain under protective services supervision in the custody of Mrs. Lovejoy, a friend of the Coys in Massachusetts. The court found that the parents lacked suitable housing and that the boys needed to complete therapy and counseling. The order resulted from a periodic review of an adjudication of dependency and a disposition order entered April 25, 1991. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4).

The record on appeal consists of the pleadings, orders and reports normally found in a dependency case, but there are no transcripts of hearings. In the order of dependency and disposition the court found that the father abused the older son. The order placed the boys in the care, custody and control of the mother, but under Protective Services Supervision of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The father was to have no contact without HRS supervision, and was to complete counseling programs. Both parents were to complete parenting classes and maintain a stable home and employment.

In subsequent orders on judicial review the court: (1) changed custody to HRS foster care and ordered a performance agreement (which was subsequently filed); (2) retained custody in HRS foster care and ordered a new performance agreement (which was never filed); (3) changed custody to Mrs. Lovejoy with "Foster Care supervision;" (4) retained custody in Mrs. Lovejoy with protective services supervision and extended the performance agreement for six months; (5) retained custody in Mrs. Lovejoy with protective services supervision and terminated the performance agreement; and, (6) ordered placement "as is" with Mrs. Lovejoy with protective services supervision and crossed out the section of the pre-printed form order dealing with performance agreements.

We recognize that the volume of cases before trial judges requires the use of pre-printed forms and that the time available for each case does not allow the use of extensive orders. If form orders are to be used, they should be designed so that they are capable of being interpreted by those who must follow their direction or provide judicial review. Those who complete the forms must make an effort to complete them fully so that meaningful orders result. The forms used in this record did not always accomplish these functions. One problem is determining under which subsection of section 39.41, Florida Statutes, the trial court intended to proceed at each stage of the proceedings.

Section 39.41, Florida Statutes (1991) initially governed the disposition of the children in this case. That section allowed the trial court several options for the placement of the boys. Review of the sparse record raises a suspicion that the trial court used, or attempted to use, one or all of the following subsections of the statute:

39.41 Powers of disposition.--

(1)(a) When any child is adjudicated by a court to be dependent, the court having jurisdiction of the child shall have the power, by order, to:

1. Place the child under the protective supervision of an authorized agent of the department, either in the child's own home or, the prospective custodian being willing, in the home of a relative of the child or in some other suitable place under such reasonable conditions as the court may direct. Protective supervision shall continue until the court terminates it or until the child reaches the age of 18, whichever date is first.

* * * * * *

6. Commit the child to the temporary legal custody of the department. Such commitment shall invest in the department all rights and responsibilities of a legal custodian. The department shall not return any child to the physical care and custody of the person from whom the child was removed, except for short visitation periods, without the approval of the court. The term of such commitment shall continue until terminated by the court or until the child reaches the age of 18. After the child is committed to the temporary custody of the department, all further proceedings under this section shall additionally be governed by part V of this chapter.

* * * * * *

(7) With respect to a child who is the subject of a performance agreement under part V of this chapter, the court shall return the child to the custody of the natural parents upon expiration of the agreement if the parents have substantially complied with the agreement.

Dispositions under subsection (1)(a)6 are additionally governed by part V of chapter 39. Part V governs children in foster care and requires that parents enter a performance agreement. Section 39.451, Fla.Stat. (1991). The performance agreement establishes actions to be taken in order to quickly assure the safe return of the child to the parents...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • AB v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, 4D02-3740.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 2003
    ...Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See Ayo v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 788 So.2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Coy v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 623 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). On appeal, the Department continues to support the mother's position that the mother should have supervi......
  • Ayo v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, 1D00-3726.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2001
    ...a periodic review of an adjudication of dependency and disposition, is an appealable non-final order. See Coy v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services, 623 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The show cause order is discharged and the appeal shall proceed as an appeal from a non-final The appellee's......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT