IN THE INTEREST OF M.P., A CHILD. M.P., SR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, AND B.P.J., APPELLEES
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.
In a dependency proceeding, the Florida appellate court reversed a dependency order declaring M.P. a dependent child because the order failed to set forth written findings of fact supporting the dependency determination. The court also held that upon remand, a trial de novo was required because the original trial judge had retired.
The court held that the failure to state written findings of fact in a dependency order constitutes reversible error. Additionally, upon remand, the case requires a trial de novo rather than proceedings before a replacement judge, because an order dependent on findings of fact should be signed by the judge before whom the facts were adduced and by whom the findings were made.
[1] A dependency order is defective and constitutes reversible error if it fails to set forth the specific facts upon which the finding of dependency is based.
[2] When a dependency order is reversed due to a defective finding of facts, and the original trial judge is no longer presiding, a trial de novo is required.
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“failure to state written findings of fact in a dependency order constitutes reversible error”
Establishes the core holding that written findings of fact are mandatory in 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 intelligenceM.P., Sr. appealed a trial court's dependency order placing his son, M.P., in the custody of B.P.J. (the child's mother). The trial court issued an or…
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
HALL, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant, M.P., Sr., challenges a dependency order declaring his son, M.P., a child, to be dependent and directing that M.P. be placed in the custody of B.P.J., M.P.’s mother and one of the appellees herein. The appellant contends that, among other things, the trial court’s order is defective because it fails to set forth the facts upon which a finding of dependency is based. The appellant also asserts that, upon remand, he is entitled to a trial de novo because the trial judge who presided over the lower court proceedings has since retired and a mere replacement judge would be unable to adequately evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or the relevance of certain evidence without conducting a new trial. We agree with the appellant on both points and reverse. Further, since those issues are dis-positive of the case, we do not reach the appellant’s remaining issues.
Though the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, also an appellee herein, argues that the facts alleged in its dependency petition should be deemed to be incorporated into the dependency order as a matter of law, we find that failure to state written findings of fact in a dependency order constitutes reversible error. See In the Interest of T.S., 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Luszczyk v. Dept, of Health and Rehab. Services, 576 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In T.S., this court found that a dependency order stating that “said children were found to be living in the conditions set forth in the petition” failed to properly set forth facts upon which a finding of dependency was based. Since the order in the instant ease fails to set forth any facts upon which the finding of dependency herein is based, it is, without question, defective.
We further find that the instant case should be remanded for a trial de novo pursuant to Avery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 586 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (where, as to the reversal of a dependency order, it is stated that “an order or judgment which is dependent upon findings of fact and conclusions to be drawn from those facts should be signed by the judge before whom the facts are adduced and by whom the findings are made”), and Williams v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 568 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (wherein it is stated that “if [a] trial judge is no longer in office ... a rehearing may be necessary”).
Accordingly, the instant case is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not, however, intend this decision to change the trial court’s previous custody order, provided it continues to be in the best interest of the child to remain with the mother. PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., 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)…cy order a brief statement of the facts upon which the finding 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 findi…
-
Damaris Hedges v. Hamilton (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…was apparent on face of judgment and remanding with instructions for the trial court to correct error). If the original trial judge is no longer in office, we order that the successor judge hold a new evidentiary hearing. See In Interest of M.P., 632 So. 2d 1051, 1051–52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (reversing dependency order and remanding for a new trial because the trial judge who presided over the lower court proceedings has since retired and a replacement judge would be unable to adequately evaluate the credibil…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of T.S. and M.H.W. v. State, 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Souter v. State, 576 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Harris v. State, 586 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)