IN THE INTEREST OF K.S., K.S., S.S., W.S., AND R.F., CHILDREN
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.
Parents appeal an order adjudicating their children dependent, despite the trial court's failure to recite specific facts supporting the adjudication. The appellate court affirms, finding sufficient factual support in the pre-dispositional reports and protective services documents in the record.
The adjudication of dependency is affirmed. Although the trial court's order failed to recite specific facts as required by statute, the pre-dispositional reports filed by HRS and the guardian ad litem, along with the Florida Protective Services System report contained in the record, provide sufficient factual basis to support the dependency finding.
[1] An order adjudicating a child dependent must briefly state the facts upon which the finding is made to aid in appellate review.
[2] When a trial court fails to recite the facts supporting an adjudication of dependency, reversal may be required if a sufficient factual basis cannot be discerned from the…
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“Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes, provides that when a child is adjudicated dependent the court shall enter an order 'briefly stating the facts upon which the finding [of dependency] is made.' This requirement serves 'to aid in appellate review of dependency orders,' particularly 'where the facts supporting a finding of dependency are less than compelling.'”
Establishes the statutory requirement for trial courts to articulate factual bases for dependency adjudications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services filed a petition for determination of dependency for the minor children. An adjudicatory hearing …
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 Dependency Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
The parents of the minor children involved in this case appeal an order by which the trial court adjudicated the children dependent and ordered supervision and counseling for the family. Although the order omits a recitation of the specific facts upon which the determination was based, we find sufficient record support for the adjudication of dependency and therefore affirm.
A petition for determination of dependency of K.S. and K.S. was filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and an adjudicatory hearing was held in November 1988. The parents were present at the adjudicatory hearing but were unrepresented by counsel. The court adjudicated the children dependent by an order referencing only “the evidence and arguments of counsel.” No transcript of testimony is included in the record on appeal. A dispositional hearing was subsequently held and an order was entered which allowed the children to stay in the custody of their parents and ordered supervision and counseling for the family, but did not recite the specific factual basis for the original adjudication of dependency.
Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes, provides that when a child is adjudicated dependent the court shall enter an order “briefly stating the facts upon which the finding [of dependency] is made.” This requirement serves “to aid in appellate review of dependency orders,” particularly “where the facts supporting a finding of dependency are less than compelling.” In the Interest of G.D.H., 498 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). When a trial court has failed to recite in its order the pertinent facts supporting an adjudication of dependency, and a sufficient factual basis cannot be discerned from a review of the record, reversal may be required. See In the Interest of C.S., 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Appellant argues that the record in this case, which includes pre-dispositional reports filed by HRS and the guardian ad litem, and a report from the Florida Protective Services System, is insufficient to support a finding of dependency. However, appellants do not negate that record evidence. If there was testimony below favorable to the appellants’ cause, the burden of course was on them to ensure that it was made part of the record. Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(e). Because we have no indication that supplementation of the record on ap peal under Rule 9.200(f)(2) is necessary or proper, or that testimony was in fact recorded at the adjudicatory proceeding, our determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis underlying the court’s finding of dependency is confined to a review of those documents which are contained in the record here. See Thomas v. Thomas, 498 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We find the above referenced reports in the record adequate to permit the trial court’s finding of dependency in this case.
The order on appeal is affirmed.
SHIVERS, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ASH v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…r of adjudication or the order of disposition, an appellate court can review the record and if the documentation is adequate to support the juvenile judge’s finding of dependency, the juvenile judge’s order will be affirmed. In the Interest of K.S., 558 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In this case, a review of the record does not support the juvenile judge’s order absent written findings. I agree we should reverse the finding of dependency and remand to the juvenile court with instructions to enter written f…
-
W.L. and S.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 776 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…serves to aid an appellate court in its review of that order. However, even though such facts are scant or may be omitted, a dependency order can be affirmed when there is sufficient evidence in the record to support it. See In the Interest of K.S., 558 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). See also C.F. v. Department of HRS, 649 So. 2d 295, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“[E]ven though the order was deficient in failing to set forth supporting facts, we affirm the order of dependency”). While the statement of supportin…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of G.D.H. and A.J.S., 498 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- In the Interest of C.S., 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Thomas v. Thomas, 498 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)