The Office of the State Courts Administrator's Office of Family Courts publishes a monthly case law update circulated to Florida judges and family-court practitioners. The June 2025 edition is short — a sign of a slow appellate month — but the four decisions it does report are worth the attention of any attorney with a delinquency, dependency, dissolution, or interpersonal-violence docket.
What follows is a working summary of the four decisions, with practical takeaways for the lawyers who will see similar facts.
The Florida Supreme Court building in Tallahassee. The Court continues to set the procedural framework — including the recent Rule 8.245 amendments — that defines how the state's family courts operate. Photo by Brandonrush via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).
Florida Supreme Court — Rule 8.245 amended
In In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.245, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 8.245 governing discovery in juvenile delinquency cases. The amendments became effective October 1, 2025.
For practitioners, the takeaway is straightforward: every standard delinquency-discovery template in your firm needs to be cross-checked against the amended rule before the next filing. Discovery rules are exactly the kind of detail that produces dismissed pleadings or sanctions when missed, and the amendments are now in effect.
Restitution must rest on reliable hearsay — K.L. v. State (2nd DCA)
In K.L. v. State of Florida, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a restitution order. The trial court had ordered $4,000 in restitution based on the victim's testimony about documents that were never offered into evidence. Section 985.437(2)(b), Florida Statutes, allows a trial court to rely on hearsay in determining restitution — but the court must find that the hearsay carries at least minimal indicia of reliability.
Practical takeaways:
- Hearsay-based restitution is permitted, but not free. Counsel introducing or opposing restitution evidence should be ready to argue the reliability question on the record.
- If the underlying documents exist, offer them. The reliability standard is easier to meet with the documents in evidence than with secondhand testimony about them.
- Preserve the issue. A reliability objection that is not made on the record cannot be argued on appeal.
Retroactivity matters — A.T.M.C. v. State (4th DCA)
In A.T.M.C. v. State of Florida, the Fourth DCA reversed a disposition order that placed a youth on conditional release with electronic monitoring. The trial court had applied a 2024 amendment to section 985.433, Florida Statutes — but the youth had committed the offense before the amendment took effect, and the Legislature had not indicated retroactive intent.
The case is a clean reminder of two doctrines that show up across criminal, juvenile, and civil practice:
- Statutes are presumed prospective. Unless the Legislature says otherwise, an amendment applies only to conduct occurring after the effective date.
- The version of the statute in effect on the date of the offense controls. This is the Bill of Attainder / Ex Post Facto principle expressed at the trial-court level.
Counsel handling delinquency dispositions should always confirm which statutory version applies before sentencing, especially in jurisdictions where the statute has been amended in the past 24 months.
Failure to appear and the limits of Zoom — F.D. v. Department of Children & Families (3rd DCA)
In F.D. v. Department of Children & Families, a parent appealed an order terminating parental rights for failure to appear in person at the advisory hearing. The parent had been incarcerated, then placed in a residential facility from which he could have appeared by Zoom — and then left the facility without permission, becoming a fugitive.
The appellate court affirmed. The reasoning is important: courts ordinarily refrain from terminating parental rights by default when an absent parent makes a reasonable effort to be present but is prevented by circumstances beyond their control. Here, however, the parent's failure to appear was within his control. He had access to Zoom and chose to walk away.
Takeaways:
- Document the parent's actual access. Whether a parent could have appeared by Zoom — and whether the residential facility, jail, or treatment program would have permitted it — is a fact-intensive question that needs evidence.
- Movements between facilities matter. A parent who flees a facility forfeits the protection that incarceration would have given them.
- The standard is reasonable effort. Counsel should be prepared to articulate, on the record, exactly what reasonable effort looks like for a particular client's circumstances.
Sua sponte dismissals and statutory standing — B.D. v. C.D. (4th DCA) and Guardian ad Litem v. S.P. (5th DCA)
Two consolidated decisions in this update reinforced limits on what a trial court can do without a motion or notice:
- In B.D. v. C.D., the Fourth DCA affirmed the dismissal of grandparents' plenary guardianship petitions because once a circuit court has chapter 39 jurisdiction over a child, the chapter 39 custody resolution supersedes other civil custody orders. The takeaway: when dependency proceedings are active, parallel guardianship petitions face an uphill jurisdictional battle.
- In Guardian ad Litem v. S.P., the Fifth DCA reversed a trial court's sua sponte order closing a TPR case in permanent guardianship. Permanent guardianship had not been requested by any party and the parents had no notice the court was considering it. The reversal is a reminder that due process applies to the form of relief, not just the existence of relief.
For practitioners: never assume the court can grant relief no party has requested, even if the relief looks like a sensible compromise.
Adoption discretion — Department of Children & Families v. J.H. (6th DCA)
The Sixth DCA reversed in part a trial court order that had granted adoption to a family DCF had denied. The trial court had reweighed the evidence rather than applying the deferential standard of review the statute requires under section 39.812(4)(b).
The decision is a useful reminder that, in adoption-application reviews, the trial court's job is not to substitute its judgment for DCF's. It is to apply the statutory factors with deference to DCF's decision and reverse only when the agency has acted contrary to its policies or statute.
What this update tells us
The June 2025 update is short, but the patterns are familiar:
- Procedure governs. Discovery rules, retroactivity rules, notice rules, standard-of-review rules — the family courts continue to enforce them strictly, and the appellate courts continue to reverse trial courts that bypass them.
- Hearsay is allowed but not unlimited. Reliability is the standard. Counsel should be prepared to argue it.
- Due process means notice. Sua sponte relief — however well-intentioned — keeps producing reversal.
For Florida family-law attorneys, the OSCA monthly update is one of the highest-value subscriptions available. The full June 2025 edition is published by the OSCA Office of Family Courts.
If you have a pending family-law, dependency, or delinquency matter and want a confidential second opinion on appellate strategy or trial preservation, request a private introduction or call 877-862-7188.