B.Y., the grandmother, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Respondent, 887 So. 2d 1253

QUINCE, J. We have for review Department of Children & Family Services v. B.Y., 863 So.2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions in In re Adoption by Alexander, 206 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), and B.B. v. Department of Children & Families, 854 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons more fully set forth below, we quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and hold that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court acted appropriately to finalize the adoption.

The Facts In September 2001, the Department of Children and Families took custody of J.L.P., B.D.P., and J.S.P., the children in this case. The children were adjudicated dependent and remained in the protective custody of the department until they were placed with their grandmother, B.Y. In March 2002, the department undertook a preliminary home study in anticipation of the placement of the children with B.Y. The study was favorable, and B.Y. was awarded temporary custody.

B.Y. had relocated from Pennsylvania to take care of the children and was assisted by a transitional housing program sponsored by the YWCA of Palm Beach County. This transitional housing was provided for up to two years. The department considered the placement with B.Y. to be a suitable permanent custody arrangement for the children. In anticipation of adoption by B.Y., parental rights were terminated. The guardian ad litem fully supported placement with B.Y., stating that B.Y. was a loving parent and the children were in a loving home.

At the final adoption hearing, however, the department refused to consent to the adoption, arguing that a final home investigation was required but had not been and could not be conducted because B.Y. was in temporary housing. The department also argued that adoption subsidies would not be payable to B.Y. in the absence of its consent to the adoption, and subsidies could not be applied for because B.Y.’s fingerprints, necessary for the application process, had been damaged. In response, the attorney ad litem for the three children argued that a final home investigation was not required under

section 63.125, Florida Statutes (1999), because B.Y. was within the third degree of consanguinity with two of the children. The trial court ruled that no home investigation was required in this case. After resolving the fingerprint problems, the judge ordered the parties to return the following week for finalization. The parties returned, and the department again refused to consent to the adoption because B.Y. had not obtained permanent housing and the home investigation had not been completed. The trial court reiterated its prior rulings and finalized the adoption without the department’s consent.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed and held that the department’s consent was mandatory and that absent the department’s consent, the trial court could not finalize the adoption. We quash the Fourth District’s decision. Law and Analysis The standard of appellate review on issues involving the

interpretation of statutes is de novo. See State v. Burris, 875 So.2d 408, 410 (Fla.2004) (“This question of statutory

interpretation is subject to de novo review.”); In re Guardianship of J.D.S., 864 So.2d 534, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“Because this case involves the application of statutory law, and is a pure question of law, the standard of review is de novo”). The department argues that the statutes found in chapters 39 and 63, Florida Statutes (2002), require the department’s consent before an adoption can be finalized. B.Y. argues that the statutes make the department’s consent permissive but not necessary. The first stated goal of

chapter 39, Florida Statutes, is “to provide for the care, safety, and protection of children in an environment that fosters healthy social, emotional, intellectual, and physical development; to ensure secure and safe custody; and to promote the health and well-being of all children under the state’s care.” § 39.001(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). The department’s role in achieving this goal is important, and the department does a tremendous service by providing care, safety, and protection to the children in its custody.

In addition to the State’s statutory responsibilities, the courts also have statutory responsibilities for these children. The courts are charged with the duty of ensuring that the best interests of the children are advanced. See In re Adoption of Doe, 543 So.2d 741 (Fla.1989) (stating that the best interest of the child in adoption proceedings is the paramount consideration); see also, §§ 63.022(2)(£), 63.122(5), 63.142(4), Fla. Stat. (2002). This duty exists during the dependency proceedings, and continues through the adoption proceedings. See B.B. v.

Dep’t of Children & Families, 854 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (finding that the dependency court is not divested of jurisdiction after a termination of parental rights trial and retains exclusive jurisdiction throughout the adoption process). Furthermore, for both the department and the courts, the paramount concern is expeditiously achieving permanent stability for the children, specifically, achieving permanent placement within one year. See § 39.001(l)(h)-(i), Fla. Stat. (2002); see also C.M. v.

Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 854 So.2d 777, 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[CJourts are compelled to expedite proceedings to prevent children from languishing in the foster care system .... Achieving permanent stability in the child’s life is the paramount concern of the judicial process.”). Thus, it is the department’s role to protect the children in the State’s care and to select suitable and permanent placement for these children, and it is the courts’ role to oversee that the expeditious and suitable placement of these children is consistent with the policies of the state as set forth by the Legislature.

In order to fulfill its role, the court has “inherent and continuing jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to child custody and to enter any order appropriate to a child’s welfare.” B.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 854 So.2d 822, 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (quoting Henry & Rilla White Found., Inc. v. Migdal, 720 So.2d 568, 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). The courts’ continuing jurisdiction is supported by the various statutory provisions of chapters 39 and 63. For example,

section 39.812(4), Florida Statutes, states that “[t]he court shall retain jurisdiction over any child placed in the custody of the department until the child is adopted,” and

section 39.813 provides that “[t]he court which terminates the parental rights of a child who is the subject of termination proceedings pursuant to this

chapter shall retain exclusive jurisdiction in all matters pertaining to the child’s adoption pursuant to

chapter 63.” Additionally, the court is statutorily required to enter orders necessary to protect the best interests of the children involved in adoption proceedings. See § 63.022(2)0), Fla. Stat. (2002) (“In all matters coming before the court under this chapter, the court shall enter such orders as it deems necessary and suitable to promote and protect the best interests of the person to be adopted.”). In this case, the children were removed from their mother’s care and were adjudicated dependent.

When the paternal grandmother learned that the children were in the department’s care, she relocated from Pennsylvania to Florida with the intent of adopting the children. She visited the children at least two times a week. After a preliminary home study was found to be favorable, B.Y. was awarded temporary custody. Upon obtaining temporary custody of the children, B.Y. began living in a transitional housing program which provided her with housing for up to two years.

All parties proceeded with the goal of permanent placement with the grandmother, and this goal was enthusiastically supported by the guardian ad litem. The department’s only concern was the grandmother’s temporary housing situation. The record indicates that the grandmother was participating in a program which provided housing for up to two years, and that she followed the program requirements.

However, the department seemed to equate the temporary nature of the housing program with instability, and argued that the risk of B.Y. becoming financially unable to care for these children prevented its consent to the final adoption. At the time of the final hearing, the children had been wards of the state more than one year, longer than the optimum time limit set by the Legislature for permanent placement. With the nature of B.Y.’s housing being the only obstacle expressed by the department for permanency, the trial court made a finding that it was in the children’s best interests to finalize the adoption.

In so doing, the trial court effectively held that the department acted unreasonably by withholding consent to the final adoption. We find that the trial court acted within its authority in finalizing the adoption without the department’s consent when, as in this case, the trial court found that withholding consent was unreasonable. The trial court’s order advanced the best interests of these children, and the adoption was consistent with the stated legisla-five policies. By denying its consent in this case, the department was well-intentioned.

However, the Legislature has mandated the court’s continuing jurisdiction to advance the children’s best interests. The court in this case fulfilled its responsibilities by ensuring that the termination of parental rights and subsequent adoption were done appropriately, consonant with the department’s policies and in an expeditious manner. The record demonstrates that the trial court considered the appropriateness of placing these children with B.Y., considered B.Y.’s financial resources, and was aware of B.Y.’s temporary housing situation.

In addition, the court considered the department and the guardian ad litem’s endorsement of B.Y. as the appropriate caregiver and the department’s preliminary home study finding B.Y. to be a suitable parent. Failure to finalize the adoption in this case would have been inconsistent with the goal of expeditiously providing a stable and permanent home for these children. Conclusion For these reasons, we quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

We hold that the trial court in this case acted consistently with the stated legislative policies and within its statutory authority to advance the best interests of the children. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. CANTERO, J., concurs with an opinion, in which, PARIENTE, C.J., concurs. . Two of the three children are actually B.Y.’s grandchildren. . Our holding is consistent with the 2004 legislative amendment to

section 39.812 which, in discussing the court’s continuing jurisdiction in adoption matters, clarifies that a copy of the department's consent must be attached to the adoption petition "unless the court determines that such consent is being unreasonably withheld and provided that the petitioner has filed with the court a favorable preliminary adoptive home study performed by a licensed child-placing agency, a child-caring agency registered under s. 409.176, or a licensed professional or agency described in s. 61.20(2).” § 39.812(5), Fla. Stat. (2004).