IN RE THE INTEREST OF R.A.L., A CHILD. MIRIAM LEAVITT, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights and permanent commitment of her child to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for adoption. The court affirmed the finding that the child was dependent based on abuse and neglect, but reversed and remanded the disposition order because the trial court failed to consider a statutorily required predisposition report before committing the child to custody.
The court affirmed the finding that the child was a dependent child based on sufficient evidence of abuse and neglect, but reversed the disposition order because the trial court failed to first obtain and consider the statutorily required predisposition report under § 39.408(2), Florida Statutes (1981).
[1] Sufficient evidence of abuse and neglect can sustain a trial judge's findings that a child is dependent under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes.
[2] A mother's belated or insufficient response to a child's needs does not ameliorate her disregard for the child's welfare when she allows an abusive individual unsupervise…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We affirm the determination that the child is a dependent child as Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, defines that term.”
The court upheld the trial court's finding of dependency based on sufficient evidence of abuse and neglect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was severely abused and tortured by the mother's boyfriend while the mother was absent. The mother was not adequately attentive to the child's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Dependency cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Júdgé.
This is an appeal from an order terminating parental rights and permanently committing a child to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for adoption.
We have examined very closely the evidence of abuse and neglect and conclude that it is sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial judge. We agree with appellant that perhaps some other conclusion and disposition could have been made, but because there is sufficient evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusions we affirm the determination that the child is a dependent child as Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, defines that term.
There is no question but that the child was tortured, brutalized and severely injured by the mother’s boyfriend while the mother was absent, and that the mother was not attentive enough to the child’s welfare. The mother did respond to the child’s needs, belatedly, and maybe insufficiently, but this does not ameliorate the disregard she evidenced for the child’s welfare by allowing the boyfriend to be near the child, especially unguarded.
However, the trial court erred in committing the child to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services without first considering the statutorily required predisposition report. § 39.-408(2), Florida Statutes (1981). We reverse the disposition order and remand this case to the trial court to conduct a de novo disposition hearing after a current predisposition report is prepared, submitted and studied by all parties. In the interest of all concerned we suggest this be done on a priority basis as soon as possible. We note with some concern that this matter has dragged on for an inordinate period of time due solely to the attorneys for both sides having requested extensions of time for the filing of briefs. It has been the custom of this court, and it will continue to be, to expedite appeals in cases such as this if requested to do so by either party; so we were perhaps too liberal in acceding to the requests of counsel when they asked for extensions of time because of “heavy workload.”
The dispositional order is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SHARP, J., and MIZE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredrick v. State, 523 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…not be combined. § 39.408(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985). In any event, virtually all of the information contained in the HRS reports was proved by other competent evidence. In Interest of L.R.R., 455 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA. 1984); In Interest of R.A.L., 440 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Finally, Fredrick complains that the trial court failed to order a new predisposition report. It is significant with respect to this issue that the child, K.F., was adjudged dependent on two previous occasions. We note that the…
-
In the Interest of L.R.R. and M.A.R. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 455 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…sues under these circumstances. There is sufficient evidence to support a finding of abandonment: a remand would serve only to delay the inevitable.4 As to the court’s failure to consider a predisposition report, while in In the Interest of R.A.L., 440 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), this court did order reversal of an order of permanent commitment because the trial court failed to consider the statutorily required predisposition report, see section 39.408(2), Florida Statutes (1983),5 that case involved a d…
-
Oren Meredith v. Janies Smith, 515 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…ds that the facts alleged in the petition for dependency were proven in the adjudicatory hearing, it is required to receive and consider a predisposition study prepared by HRS; here, a predisposition study was not prepared. In In Interest of R.A.L., 440 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), this court determined that the trial court erred in committing a child to the custody of HRS without first considering the statutorily required predisposition report. Hence, it was error, in the present case, to award temporary…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence