P.B. AND B.B., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY 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.
Parents appealed a dependency adjudication and shelter order removing their autistic child from the home. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the parents failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion in the temporary removal and did not validly withdraw their consent to the dependency finding.
The court affirmed all aspects of the trial court's decision. The parents failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion regarding temporary removal. The parents failed to show good cause to withdraw their consent to dependency, as the record conclusively disproved their claims of lack of understanding or voluntariness. The court had authority under Florida Statutes section 39.41(2)(a) to place the child in a therapeutic facility.
[1] An appeal challenging the sufficiency of an order adjudicating a child dependent is time-barred if the notice of appeal is not filed within the prescribed time after the…
[2] A party seeking to withdraw consent to a dependency adjudication must demonstrate good cause, showing they did not understand the nature of the adjudication, its potentia…
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“Appellants have not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in deciding to remove their child from the home on a temporary basis.”
States the main holding regarding the trial court's discretionary authority to order temporary removal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP.B. and B.B. had a son with autism who was adjudicated dependent by the trial court on September 11, 1997. The parents had consented to the dependenc…
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
[*591] PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Appellants have not demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in deciding to remove their child from the home on a temporary basis.
The portion of this appeal relating to the sufficiency of the order which adjudicated Appellants’ son dependent is time-barred. The order was rendered September 11, 1997, and the notice of appeal was not filed until October 22, 1997. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); Estate of Schatz, 613 So. 2d 591, 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
With respect to the trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to withdraw their consent to dependency, the record conclusively disproves Appellants’ allegations that they did not understand that they were agreeing to an adjudication of dependency, that they were unaware that one of the possible consequences of a dependency determination was the loss of custody of their child, and that their consent was not voluntary and knowing. As to this, Appellants failed to make the demonstration of good cause required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.315(b).
We also affirm the shelter order placing Appellants’ autistic child in a therapeutic facility. Section 39.41(2)(a), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part:
(a) When any child is adjudicated by a court to be dependent, the court having jurisdiction of the child has the power, by order, to:
Ht He * H* * *
9. a. Change the temporary legal custody or the conditions of protective supervision at a postdisposition hearing subsequent to the initial detention hearing, without the necessity of another adjudicatory hearing....
The court also had authority to act sua sponte to remove the child from a home placement upon a finding that the child is at risk. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Hollis, 439 So. 2d 947, 948-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); In re T.G.T., 433 So. 2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); In re J.R.T., 427 So. 2d 251, 252-53 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
We do not consider the question of adequate notice because Appellants did not object to the lack of notice in the proceedings below or request a continuance. The first time they raised the issue was on appeal. By failing to object and by proceeding on the matter at the hearing, Appellants waived their objections to the lack of notice. McGlamry v. Voytek, 659 So. 2d 1184, 1184-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
STONE, C.J., and KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.S. and J.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 777 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…parent and where the court never determined that the father’s consent was voluntary and with a full understanding of the possible consequences of the consent as required by rule 8.325(e). See also P.B v. Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., [*1121] 709 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(parents failed to establish that they did not understand that they were agreeing to adjudication of dependency, that they were unaware that one possible consequence of the dependency determination was the loss of the custody of t…
-
Malzone v. Uribe, 232 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…. See Williams v. Miami-Dade Cty. Public Health Tr., 17 So. 3d 859, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when its sanctions order was well-supported by the evidence); P.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 709 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“We do not consider the question of adequate notice because Appellants did not object to the lack of notice in the proceedings below or request a continuance. The first time they raised the issue was on appeal. By failing t…
-
D.M.U. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 917 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…er consent. The Mother failed to demonstrate good cause for withdrawal of consent under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.315(b) (2004), as the record conclusively disproves the Mother’s allegations. See P.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 709 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The record also establishes that, during the colloquy, the Mother responded affirmatively when the judge asked whether she understood the allegations contained in the petition for dependency and the possible consequences o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hollis, 439 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- In the Interest of J.R.T. v. State, 427 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Irwin J. Sherwin and Marcia Sherwin v. Mansur Aftab, 433 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- In the Interest of T.G.T. v. Staley, 433 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- In re Est. of Celia Schatz v. Altman, 613 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Sunniland Bank v. Mosley, 659 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- McGLAMRY v. Voytek, 659 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)