S.B., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-03-05
No. 2024-1564
2025 FL 1935 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025)

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.

Synopsis

Mother appealed the trial court's adjudication of her two young, non-verbal children as dependent following the death of an infant sibling from neglect. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an amended order and that substantial evidence supported the dependency finding based on the prior sibling death, parental credibility issues, and family circumstances.

Holding

The trial court retained jurisdiction to reduce its verbal ruling to writing despite the ten-day deadline in Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.265(b)(3), and substantial evidence supported the dependency finding based on the prior sibling death, parental credibility determinations, lack of parental understanding regarding risk, and the vulnerability of non-verbal children.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to reduce a ruling to writing after verbally ruling on a motion for rehearing within the prescribed time, even if the written order is…

[2] A trial court's final ruling of dependency will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence…

Previewing 2 of 5 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
Key Quotes

“Having verbally ruled within ten days, including directing the parties to submit proposed orders, the trial court retained jurisdiction to reduce its ruling to writing.”

Establishes that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction despite the ten-day deadline for reducing the rehearing ruling to a written order.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Two children, L.R. and K.R., ages three and four, were non-verbal at the time of hearing. An infant sibling died from an unsafe sleeping arrangement i…

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.

Topics
Substantial Risk Of Imminent Abuse, Abandonment, Or Neglect Dependency Adjudication Competent Substantial Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Risk Of Imminent Abuse, Abandonment, Or Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

Nos. 3D24-1564 & 3D24-1573 Lower Tribunal No. 24-15011 D003 ________________

S.B., the Mother, Appellant,

vs.

Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angelica D. Zayas, Judge.

Joyce Law, P.A., and Richard F. Joyce, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Caitlin E. Burke, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

LOGUE, C.J.

We affirm. The Mother first argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order under review. After a two-day hearing ending on June4, 2024, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent. This first order of adjudication was entered on July 23, 2024, nunc pro tunc to June4, 2024. The Father, whose parental rights were adjudicated in the same proceeding, moved for rehearing on July 30, 2024 on the ground that the order failed to contain sufficient findings of imminent harm, as required by section 39.01(15)(f), Florida Statutes.

The trial court held a hearing on the Father’s motion for rehearing on August 1, 2024.

At the hearing, the Mother joined the motion and the Department of Children and Families agreed to the motion. As clearly reflected in the transcript, the trial court expressly granted the motion and directed the parties to submit new proposed orders.

On August 22, 2024, the Mother filed an appeal of the first order of adjudication believing it was necessary for her to protect her right to appeal.

The trial court ultimately signed the amended order of adjudication on August 28, 2024, nunc pro tunc to June4, 2024. In arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order,

The two children at issue, L.R. and K.R., were three and four years old and non-verbal at the time of the hearing.

The evidence at the dependency hearing indicated the Department petitioned to have the two children declared dependent after an infant sibling died from an unsafe sleeping

The trial court also expressly found that the testimony of both parents at trial was not credible on critical points.

The trial court determined the parents exhibited a lack of understanding concerning how their behavior put the children at risk. At the time of the hearing, the family was homeless and declined shelter. The two children declared dependent are particularly vulnerable because they are non-verbal. If one removed the factor of the death of the sibling, these circumstances may not suffice to declare the children dependent. But the death of the sibling was entitled to great weight in the trial court’s consideration when deciding whether harm to these children was imminent.

Footnotes
2 In these consolidated appeals, S.B., the mother, seeks review of an order and amended order adjudicating her two children, L.R. and K.R., dependent.
3 the Mother relies on Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.265(b)(3), which provides: “The court must rule on the motion for rehearing within 10 days of filing or it is deemed denied.” She contends the motion was deemed denied as a matter of law, and the trial court lost jurisdiction when the court’s verbal ruling was not reduced to writing within ten days. We decline to read this Rule of Juvenile Procedure so narrowly. Having verbally ruled within ten days, including directing the parties to submit proposed orders, the trial court retained jurisdiction to reduce its ruling to writing. The Mother next argues that the record lacks sufficient evidence of “substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect” required by section 39.01(15)(f). “A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.” L.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 315 So. 3d 66, 68–69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting M.F. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla. 2000)).
4 arrangement. The investigation revealed alcohol use was involved in the circumstances leading up to the death. After hearing the testimony of the Mother, Father, Medical Examiner, and Child Protective Investigator, the trial court expressly found that the infant died due to the neglect of the parents. It is well established that “evidence of prior neglect of another child is admissible to effectuate the liberal construction given to Chapter 39 in guaranteeing a child a safe and nurturing environment free from the prospect of abuse or neglect.” Brown v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 582 So. 2d 113, 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Such evidence includes the death of a sibling. R.B. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 283 So. 3d 410, 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
5 We emphasize that the primary purpose of a petition for dependency is to protect the children, not to punish the parents. See § 39.001, Fla. Stat. We recognize that the Father and Mother suffered a debilitating loss in the death of their infant. Indeed, the favored result of a dependency action is the reunification of the parents with their children pursuant to a case plan which provides needed support and services – if this can be done safely. As has been pointed out by this Court before, the adjudication of dependency need not signal the end of the parents’ relationship with the children, but perhaps a new beginning. R.B., 283 So. 3d at 415. Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw