D.S., FATHER OF B.S. AND D.S., CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a dependency adjudication because the trial court failed to include findings of fact specifying the acts causing dependency, despite parental stipulation, requiring remand for a proper order.
A trial court must incorporate findings of fact specifying the acts causing dependency and the facts supporting those findings in its adjudication order, even when parents stipulate to dependency.
[1] A trial court must include findings of fact specifying the acts causing dependency and supporting facts in its adjudication order even when both parents stipulate to the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“incorporate ... findings of fact specifying the act or acts causing dependency, by whom committed, and facts upon which the findings are based”
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.325(c) requirement for adjudication orders
A father challenged the trial court's orders adjudicating his two minor children dependent and placing them in temporary custody of their paternal gra…
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 Order Of Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The father challenges the trial court’s orders adjudicating his two minor children dependent and placing them in the temporary custody of their paternal grandfather. Because no facts are recited in the orders of adjudication or disposition, we must reverse the adjudication of dependency and remand the case for entry of a proper order. The adjudicatory order states only that “[s]aid children) is a/are dependent ehild(ren) because the mother stipulated to dependency and the father stipulated thereto.” Although the parents consented to a finding of dependency, the rule nevertheless requires that the court “incorporate ... findings of fact specifying the act or acts causing dependency, by whom committed, and facts upon which the findings are based.” Fla. R.Juv.P. 8.325(c).
Moreover, section 39.-409(3), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that where a trial court finds a child dependent “it shall incorporate that finding in an order of adjudication entered in the case, briefly stating the facts upon which the finding is made.” See In re D.M.S., 528 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
The trial court’s failure to include findings of fact to support the dependency adjudication compels us to reverse the adjudication and remand the case for entry of a proper order. REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent -with this opinion.
BARFIELD, MINER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denson v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 661 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…abilitative Services, 649 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); In re L.H., 647 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Simons v. Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 644 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); D.S. v. Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 642 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Ware v. J.N.M., 632 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).…
-
C.F. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…h regard to appellant B.F., we conclude the trial court erred in failing to set forth in the dependency 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 r…
-
S.D. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 644 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…dency, the applicable rule required the trial court to “incorporate ... findings of fact specifying the act or acts causing dependency, by whom committed, and facts upon which the findings are based.” Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.325(c); see D.S. v. Dep’t of HRS, 642 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. MINER, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Heppelle, 528 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)