C.L.K., APPELLANT,
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.
C.L.K. appeals the trial court's adjudication of dependency of her two children based solely on her positive marijuana test at the time of the newborn's birth. The court reverses because a single positive drug test, with no additional findings of abuse or neglect, is insufficient to support removal of healthy children from their mother's care.
The court held that a positive marijuana test by itself, without additional findings of abuse or neglect, is insufficient to support an adjudication of dependency that removes healthy children from their mother's care and places them with a relative for protective supervision.
[1] A positive drug test for a mother at the time of a child's birth, without additional findings of abuse or neglect, is insufficient to support an order of dependency that…
[2] Judicial review of dependency orders is restricted to the factual findings explicitly stated in the trial court's order.
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“This test by itself, with no additional findings of abuse or neglect, is insufficient to support an order of dependency that removes a healthy newborn and a year-old sibling from their mother, and places them in the home of a relative for protective supervision.”
States the holding that a single positive drug test cannot support dependency adjudication without corroborating findings of abuse or neglect
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.L.K. gave birth to D.C. on December 19, 1990, a healthy newborn with good Apgar scores and negative drug screening. While hospitalized, C.L.K. teste…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.L.K. appeals the trial court’s adjudication of dependency concerning her children, D.C., a newborn, and R.C., a year-old sibling. We reverse because the only finding in the dependency order is insufficient to support the order. C.L.K. gave birth to D.C. on December 19, 1990. At birth, the child weighed six pounds, had Apgar scores of nine and nine, and was otherwise healthy. A drug screen on the child was negative. While in the hospital for this normal delivery, C.L.K. tested positive for cannabinoids on a urinalysis. The technician who performed this test admitted that the test indicated a threshold level of cannabinoids which could have been the result of second-hand smoke at any time within thirty days of the delivery.
The petition alleges several bases for dependency as enumerated in section 39.-01(10), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). It contains allegations of abuse or neglect in addition to this one drug test. The trial court, however, did not rule on the other grounds. It only found that the mother had tested positive for marijuana when D.C. was born.
This test by itself, with no additional findings of abuse or neglect, is insufficient to support an order of dependency that removes a healthy newborn and a year-old sibling from their mother, and places them in the home of a relative for protective supervision. See § 39.41(l)a, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990).1 Cf. § 415.503(9)(g), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990) (“harm” to a child for purposes of the Child Abuse Training Act includes a mother’s use of a controlled substance during pregnancy if the child experiences specific abnormalities).
We are restricted to considering the factual findings in the order. See Wilkinson v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 557 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). On remand, if HRS still maintains that these children are dependent under the guidelines of chapter 39, it is authorized to file another petition to prove other grounds for dependency. The adjudication of dependency is reversed.
FRANK, C.J., and LEHAN and A'LTENBERND, JJ., concur. . Had the trial court entered an order pursuant to section 39.409(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), withholding adjudication of dependency and placing the newborn’s home under HRS supervision, this might be a different case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of T.S. and M.H.W. v. State, 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)