L.L., FATHER OF D.J., M.J., A.J., B.J. AND E.J., CHILDREN vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 L.L., FATHER OF D.J., M.J., A.J., B.J., AND E.J., CHILDREN, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D21-658 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed June 24, 2021 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County, Laura Shaffer, Judge. Richard F. Joyce, of the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant. Kelley Schaeffer, of Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina F. Moore and Sarah Todd Weitz, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM. L.L. (“Father”), the father of the minor children D.J., M.J., A.J., B.J., and E.J., appeals that portion of the supplemental disposition order adjudicating the children dependent that requires, as part of the case plan approved by the trial court, Father to complete a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations. The record shows that Father freely, voluntarily, and knowingly executed a written consent to his children being adjudicated dependent and that the trial court accepted Father’s consent after sufficient colloquy. In this document, Father acknowledged, among other things, that he understood that the trial court, either on its own motion or on motion of another party, could modify the case plan and order him to comply with repeated or additional tasks, including, but not limited to, a psychological and psychiatric evaluation. Nevertheless, Father objected to the evaluation. Based upon our review of the entire record, which, without further elaboration, shows good cause for the court-ordered evaluation, we affirm the supplemental disposition order, including that portion of the order requiring Father to complete a psychological evaluation and to follow any recommendations resulting from the evaluation. We do, however, agree with the parties that a remand to the trial court is necessary so that the court can 2 amend the order to specify the “time, place, manner, conditions[,] and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” See J.M. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 8 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (first quoting Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.250(b); and then citing D.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 966 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend order consistent with this opinion. LAMBERT, HARRIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
