For Initial Consultation Call, If on Cell Phone, Click on (407) 260-6001

or Use the Consultation Email Form

Learn What Drives DCF to Avoid State Child Dependency by Complying with the Case Plan

By Eduardo J. Mejias, Orlando Family Law Attorney

Practicing Exclusively Family Law Since 2011

Actual DCF Practices Beyond the Black Letter Of The Law

Here I provide insights into: (1) what drives DCF, and if you are listed as an offending parent, (2) what to do to properly adapt to its requirements so as to help you get back together with your children.

On the page How to Fight DCF I provided a broad overview of the highlights of Chapter 39 of Florida's Family Law statutes. This chapter governs how the Department of Children and Families prosecutes dependency cases. Essentially, that  page served as a primer for the “nuts and bolts” of black-letter child dependency law.  This page goes beyond the black letter into preparing you for the actual practices followed by this Department of the Florida government. 

A Case That Illustrate What Drives DCF

A recent courtroom experience reminded me why most private family law attorneys avoid dependency cases like the Zika virus. My client, the father of a young son, raised his son to the best of his ability during his child’s short life. Even after the relationship between my client and the mother of the child fell apart, he continued to play an active role in raising his son.

Despite working 50 to 60 hours per week, he consistently spent quality time with him, and supported him financially. There were no hints of physical or verbal abuse, neglect, or substance abuse surrounding my client. Yet, he found himself listed as an offending parent in a child dependency case. 

The Department made numerous factually-based allegations in the petition for child dependency about the mother’s drug addictions. But it only accused my client of one thing: When he was offered to be his son’s primary caregiver several months ago at the shelter hearing, he declined. In the eyes of the Department of Children and Families, this one act constituted “abandonment”.

In reality, the child’s father wanted his son to live with him, but believed that his demanding work schedule would not allow him to spend enough time with him. He was also assured (wrongly) by the Child and Protective Services investigator that the matter would be “wrapped up” in a month or so, and after that he could resume spending substantial time with his son.

To the average observer, my client’s reaction seems like a sensible response. However, at the recent trial, DCF continued to argue against letting him assume temporary custody of his son, even though he had modified his work schedule, lives in stable residence, and had since expressed a desire to care for his son full-time. Why did DCF take this punitive stance against my client? Was it still dwelling on his one-time “abandonment” from several months prior? 

The answer to this question lies in a seemingly minor incident that happened about a month before the trial. My client, whom, by this point, had retained me as his attorney, agreed to submit to a home study by the case manager.

The home study went smoothly until the case manager asked to inspect a bedroom that was locked. My client, who actually rents this house from his grandmother who lives in Alabama, told the case manager that he could not open the bedroom door because only his grandmother had the key. When asked what was inside, he informed the case manager that it was filled with boxes containing his grandmother’s personal belongings.

Despite this innocuous explanation, the case manager refused to complete the home study necessary for my client to obtain temporary custody of his son. She reasoned that without knowing what exactly was in that room, she could not “sign off” on recommending that the child live in that house. Because of this one failure to accommodate DCF, its attorney argued at the trial that it would not be in the child’s best interests to live with his own father.

Unfortunately, the dependency judge approved the Department’s strained reasoning, and refused to grant my client temporary custody at the trial. The judge did, however, praise my client for his stellar parenting efforts, and all but assured him that if he granted DCF access to that one room in his house, temporary custody of his son would be his. My client was naturally disappointed in the outcome, but understood what he had to do to get his son.

What Drives DCF is Administrative Procedures, Not Substance

The lesson to take away from this experience is this:  DCF and the judge are driven so much by details of administrative procedures that they lost sight of the “big picture” relating to whether or not the father was fit to raise his own child. In dependency cases, failure to comply fully with all of the case plan requirements put forward by DCF is tantamount to being an unfit parent. In short, how well you raised your child throughout his or her life will not save you if you defy or ignore the dictates of this state agency.

Complying With The Case Plan Is Vital

I stress to all of my dependency clients that complying with DCF’s recommended case plan is vital to their chances of success. No matter how annoying, trivial, or burdensome these case plan tasks are, you must complete them if you want to be reunified with your child. Think about it. How does the Department generate revenue? Through the collection of fees associated with these case plans. How does DCF successfully lobby for more funding from Tallahassee?  By devising and enforcing case plans that require taxpayer dollars.

As you can tell from the tone of this article, I personally believe that the current state of affairs in dependency court needs serious reform. However, until the Florida Legislature improves matters through legislation, we can only deal with the current reality. As I have often remarked to both my family law and dependency clients, “What is just and what is legal are often two different things; don’t confuse the two.”

How You Can Get Help

If you have been listed as an offending parent in a child dependency case, I encourage you to call AAA Family Law at (407) 260-6001 and schedule an initial consultation with me. At the consultation I will listen to your situation regarding DCF and come up with a plan of action to resolve your case in the most favorable manner.  Then I will quote you a fixed attorney retainer fee, not an hourly rate whose total you cannot predict.

This is the rage of attorney fees charged by AAA Family law for Department of Children and Families Dependency cases: $3,000 to $5,000. The actual amount depends on the level of complexity of your case.  For more about the retainer fees, including their range for each type of family law case, please click on Our Retainer Fee Policies.



Call, If on Cell Phone, Click on (407) 260-6001 to Arrange a Consultation Time

Or Complete and Submit the Consultation Email Form

Before the Consultation You Will Be Asked to Complete an Intake Email Form

AAA Family Law

283 Cranes Roost Blvd., Suite 111

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701

AAA Family Law is located in Altamonte Springs and serves clients throughout the Orlando Metro Area including, but not limited to, the following cities and unincorporated areas, by county: Orange County: Apopka, Bay Lake, Maitland, Ocoee, Orlando, Union Park, Winter Garden, and Winter Park; Seminole County: Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Lake Mary, Longwood, Oviedo, Sanford, and Winter Springs; Volusia County: Daytona Beach, DeBary, DeLand, Deltona, and Orange City; Lake County: Clermont, Leesburg, and Mount Dora; Osceola County: Buena Ventura Lakes, Celebration, and Kissimmee; Orange, Lake, Osceola, and Polk Counties: Four Corners; Orange and Seminole Counties: Goldenrod.