IN THE INTEREST OF T.S. AND M.H.W., CHILDREN. MARK WILKINSON AND BEVERLY WILKINSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The court held that while there was sufficient evidence to find dependency, the trial court erred by failing to state the specific factual basis for the adjudication of dependency in its order. The court also held that the trial court could have found dependency without formal adjudication.
Appellants, Mark and Beverly Wilkinson, appealed orders in a child dependency case, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for dependency and the cou…
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
THREADGILL, Judge.
Mark and Beverly Wilkinson appeal orders of the trial court in this child dependency case. They contend that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of dependency and that the court erred in adjudicating the children dependent without stating the factual basis for the finding as required by section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1987).
We have considered the arguments and examined the record of these proceedings and find sufficient evidence to support the finding of dependency.
Section 39.409 requires, however, that when the court makes a finding of dependency that includes an adjudication of dependency, the order must state the facts upon which the finding is made. § 39.409(3), Fla.Stat. In both orders of adjudication the only factual basis stated by the court was that “said children were found to be living in the conditions set forth in the petition filed on August 16, 1988.” This is insufficient to support an adjudication of dependency. See In the Interest of I.T. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 532 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Fitzpatrick v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 515 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); In the Interest of C.S., a child, 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
The trial court, in the final order, found no action required other than Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services supervision within the home. With such a disposition the court could have properly found the children dependent, but withheld formal adjudication of dependency. § 39.409(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). We therefore remand with instructions that the formal adjudication of dependency be stricken. In all other respects, the orders on appeal are affirmed.
Affirmed in part; remanded with directions.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.F. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…g of dependency was made. See D.S. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 642 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); M.P. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 632 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); In the Interest of T.S., 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); In the Interest of C.S., 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). “The rationale behind the requirement that the trial court judge state the facts on which he bases his finding of dependency is to aid in appellate review of dependency…
-
Ware v. In the Interest of J.N.M., 632 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…cts upon which the finding of dependency was based. [*717] Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1991), requires that an order adjudicating a child dependent “briefly stat[e] the facts upon which the finding is made.... ” See In the Interest of T.S., 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); In the Interest of G.D.H., 498 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a proper order of adjudication. Since the trial judge who entered the original order of adjudication is no longer a…
-
M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 827 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. A circuit court’s dependency order “must state the facts upon which the finding is made.” In the Interest of T.S.; M.H.W. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Serv’s, 557 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Failure to make the statutorily required findings of fact requires that the adjudication be vacated. See Williams v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Serv’s,Z568 So. 2d 995, 996-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); J.C.G. v. Dep’t of C…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of I.T. v. State, 532 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- In the Interest of C.S., 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Celeste Fitzpatrick v. State, 515 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)