C.F., NATURAL FATHER OF A.S.F., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE. B.F., NATURAL MOTHER OF A.S.F., A CHILD, 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.
In this consolidated dependency appeal, the natural parents of A.S.F. challenged findings of dependency based on the death of A.S.F.'s younger sibling while in the father's care. The court affirmed the dependency finding as to the father but reversed and remanded as to the mother due to the trial court's failure to state facts supporting the dependency finding.
The court affirmed the dependency finding as to the father C.F. by clear and convincing evidence but reversed and remanded as to the mother B.F. because the trial court failed to briefly state the facts supporting the finding of dependency against her, which was required to aid appellate review.
[1] A finding of dependency of a child may be predicated on proof of neglect or abuse of a sibling of that child.
[2] A trial court's determination that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless, as a matter of law, no one could reasonably find such evidence to be cl…
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“a trial court's determination that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless it may be said as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing”
Establishes the standard of review for clear and convincing evidence findings in dependency cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.S.F.'s younger sibling died while in the care of the father, C.F. The mother, B.F., was incarcerated during the events leading to the child's death …
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.
In these consolidated appeals, appellants, the natural parents of A.S.F., challenge findings of dependency of A.S.F. which are predicated on the death of A.S.F.’s younger sibling while in the care of the father, C.F. Both C.F. and B.F., the mother, contend the trial court erred in failing to briefly state the facts supporting the findings of dependency. In addition, they each assert the evidence was insufficient to support the findings of dependency. C.F. also contends the trial court erred in making the finding of dependency with regard to him by clear and convincing evidence. As to appellant B.F., we reverse and remand for a statement of the facts supporting the finding of dependency. As to C.F., we affirm the trial court’s order.
First, we reject appellants’ argument that the finding of dependency of A.S.F. cannot be predicated upon proof of neglect or abuse of another child, A.S.F.’s sibling. See generally Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991), and In the Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
We also reject C.F.’s argument that the trial court erred in making the finding of dependency as to him by clear and convincing evidence. See generally In the Interest of D.F., 622 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
We also note that “a trial court’s determination that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless it may be said as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing.” See In the Interest of D.J.S., 563 So. 2d 655, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
With 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 rationale behind the requirement that the trial court judge state the facts on which he bases his finding of dependency is to aid in appellate review of dependency orders. The need for such a statement of facts is particularly evident in cases ... where the facts supporting a finding of dependency are less than compelling.” In the Interest of G.D.H., 498 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Among other things, the evidence of record shows that B.F. was incarcerated during the events that led to the death of the younger child, with limited means of communicating with C.F.; she saw the child once after the injuries which led to his death; and her husband, the child’s father, was a certified nurses’ assistant who represented to B.F. that he was taking care of the child’s injuries. There was conflicting evidence as to B.F.’s behavior toward the child. It was not sufficient for the trial court simply to state in the order that the allegations of the petition had been proven against B.F. by a preponderance of the evidence.
As to appellant C.F., however, the evidence in the record is overwhelming; thus even though the order was deficient in failing to set forth supporting facts, we affirm the order of dependency as to him. See, e.g., AT. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 490 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED in part REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 864 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…oth parents, or the custodians of a minor child, depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Case law on this subject has applied dependency provisions in this manner. See, e.g., C.F. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In the Interest of J.J. and J.J., 570 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); In the Interest of L.S., 592 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The court further observed that, in addition, the 1994 amendments to section 39.404(3)(c)…
-
Denson v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 661 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ding of substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect as opposed to actual abuse. Further, a finding of dependency of a child may be based on proof of neglect or abuse of other children. See C.F. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991). However, the evidence in these cases must establish that the child is at…
-
M.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 826 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…t may be based upon proof of neglect or abuse of a sibling.” F.R., 763 So. 2d at 479 (footnote omitted) (citing Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991); C.F. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In the Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). However, an incident of prior abuse or neglect of one child is insufficient by itself to establish a substantial risk of im [*448] minent abuse to another child. M…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- IN the Interest OF D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of G.D.H. and A.J.S., 498 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- In the Interest of C.S., 503 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- In the Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- In the Interest of A.T. and T.T. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 490 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- In the Interest of D.F., 622 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- In the Interest of T.S. and M.H.W. v. State, 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- D.S. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 642 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- In the interest of M.P. v. State, 632 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)