IN THE INTEREST OF D.H. AND M.H., 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.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's order denying the state's petition to adjudicate children as dependent, despite evidence of child abuse. The court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether trial courts must provide detailed findings of fact when denying dependency petitions, beyond simply finding the child is not dependent.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the dependency petition, and the judgment is affirmed. However, the court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether rule 8.650 requires additional findings of fact in orders denying dependency petitions.
[1] A trial court is required to make fact findings supporting an order of dependency.
[2] Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.650 requires all court orders to contain findings of fact as required by law.
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“A trial court is required to make fact findings supporting an order of dependency.”
Establishes the general rule that findings of fact must accompany dependency orders
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 alleging child abuse and seeking adjudication of dependency for two children, D.…
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 Petition For Adjudication Of Dependency cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal by the state from an order denying a petition for adjudication of dependency.
Although there is evidence in the record supporting allegations of child abuse, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying its petition. The state has not demonstrated that the trial court applied an erroneous standard in reaching its decision or that the court erred by denying dependency without making specific findings of fact, other than the finding that the child was not dependent. We note that H.R.S. does not argue that the standard for our review of a final order denying dependency differs from the standard generally applied in reviewing a decision by the fact finder. A trial court is required to make fact findings supporting an order of dependency. See Fitzpatrick v. Dep’t. of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 515 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); In the Interest of C.S., 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1989). Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.650 provides:
All orders of the court shall be reduced to writing as soon after they are entered as is consistent with orderly procedure and shall contain findings of fact as required by law.
The rule does not specify that it is limited to orders adjudicating dependency. However, section 39.409(1), Florida Statutes, states:
If the court finds that the child named in a petition is not dependent, it shall enter an order so finding and dismissing the case.
We are concerned that the conclusion that additional fact findings are not mandated in an order denying a dependency petition may fail to recognize the state’s interest in protecting the welfare of a possibly abused child by depriving the child of the protection afforded by findings of fact. Additionally, we cannot determine whether the supreme court in adopting rule 8.650 intended this disparate treatment as to findings of fact. Therefore, we certify, as an issue of great public importance:
WHETHER FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 8.650 REQUIRES FINDINGS OF FACT (IN ADDITION TO THE FINDING THAT THE CHILD IS NOT DEPENDENT) IN A TRIAL COURT ORDER DENYING A DEPENDENCY PETITION?
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
WARNER, J., concurs.
HERSEY, C.J., dissents with opinion.
HERSEY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I would reverse and remand to require the trial court to make written findings of fact in compliance with rule 8.650, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The protection of all parties involved requires that we be able, in the course of our review, to focus on the precise factors which prompted the disposition appealed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guardian Ad Litem v. In the Interest of K. W. and K. W., 234 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- 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)