M.K. v. Kaplan (In re A.K.P.)
On a third appeal in a dependency/adoption placement dispute, the Fourth DCA affirmed an order transferring custody of an autistic child from his long-time foster mother to a paternal second cousin selected by the father as the prospective adoptive placement. The majority held that despite the trial court's statement giving the section 63.082(6)(e) stability presumption 'minimal weight,' the record as a whole showed the court recognized the presumption, applied the clear-and-convincing burden, and weighed each statutory factor; the unusual three-year split-custody arrangement and quicker path to permanency supported rebuttal. Judge Ciklin dissented, arguing a burden-shifting presumption has no 'degrees' and cannot be diluted by the very evidence offered to rebut it.
Key facts
- Foster mother sought to adopt an autistic child she had cared for long-term; the child's father selected a paternal second cousin as the prospective adoptive placement instead.
- The trial court transferred custody from the foster mother to the father's selected placement, applying the statutory stability presumption but stating it gave that presumption 'minimal weight.'
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is the first substantial appellate construction of the 2023 amendments to section 63.082(6) applying the stability presumption in a contested foster-parent versus parent-selected adoptive placement, and it signals… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.