A.G. AND D.J., PETITIONERS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that a parent's challenge to an order declaring a child dependent may be raised on appeal from a subsequent disposition order, not only from the initial dependency order itself. The Court resolved a conflict between district court decisions by applying reasoning from G.L.S. v. Department of Children & Families to the dependency context.
A parent may challenge an order adjudicating a child dependent upon appeal from a subsequent final disposition order entered pursuant to section 39.41(2)(a), Florida Statutes, even though an immediate appeal from the earlier dependency order would have been proper and preferable.
[1] An order adjudicating a child dependent may be challenged on appeal from a subsequent disposition order.
[2] The statutory scheme for dependency and disposition orders is ambiguous regarding the need for immediate appeal.
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“an order which initially terminates parental rights in a child dependency case may be challenged upon appeal from a subsequent final disposition order”
Establishes the central holding that appellate review is available from the later disposition order rather than only from the initial adjudication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners, A.G. and D.J., sought review of a district court decision in a child dependency case. The lower court had entered an order adjudicati…
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 Child Dependency Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the decision in A.G. v. Department, of Children and Family Services, 707 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
The district court certified conflict with the decision in Moore v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 664 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We recently decided G.L.S. v. Department of Children & Families, 24 Fla.
L. Weekly S23, 724 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1998), wherein we held that an order which initially terminates parental rights in a child dependency case may be challenged upon appeal from a subsequent final disposition order. In other words, we held that while it was proper and preferable that an appeal be taken from the earlier termination order, the statutory scheme was sufficiently ambiguous and the right in question so important that a termination order was subject to review in an appeal from the subsequent final disposition. Id. at S25, 724 So. 2d 1181. In so holding, we approved Moore to the extent it was consistent with G.L.S., and quashed the decision in G.L.S. v. Department of Children & Families, 700 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Although G.L.S. and Moore dealt with orders terminating parental rights, and this case deals with orders declaring the petitioners’ children dependent, we find the analysis of the statutory scheme to be the same for purposes of appealability.
Under section 39.409(2)-(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the court has the authority to adjudicate as dependent any child who has been previously designated as dependent.1 This order of adjudication is analogous to the adjudicatory order terminating parental rights.
Furthermore, similar to the termination of parental rights statutory scheme, once an order adjudicating a child dependent is entered, a disposition order pursuant to section 39.41(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), may be entered which places the child in a setting according to the best interests of the child or requires certain services for the child, parent or custodian. The statutory scheme is ambiguous in terms of alerting those affected as to the need to appeal. For these rea sons, and, as in G.L.S. with the issue of termination, we find that the issue of dependency may be raised in an appeal from the later disposition order under section 39.41(2)(a).
Therefore, we quash the district court’s decision in A.G. and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . Sections 39.409(2) and (3) provide:
(2) If the court finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child’s home is required, it may enter an order briefly stating the facts upon which its finding is based, but withholding an order of adjudication and placing the child's home under the supervision of the department. If the court later finds that the custodians of the child have not complied with the conditions of supervision imposed, the court may, after hearing to establish the honcompliance, but without further evidence of the state of dependency, enter an order of adjudication and shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child as adjudicated.
(3) If the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, but shall elect not to proceed under subsection (2), it shall incorporate that finding in an order of adjudication entered in the case, briefly stating the facts upon which the finding is made, and the court shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child as adjudicated.
§ 39.409(2)-(3), Fla. Stat. (1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.V.-B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…a. 2d DCA 2005). A dependency proceeding, however, is procedurally distinct from a termination proceeding. The order adjudicating dependency is appealable as a final order. See § 39.510, Fla. Stat. (2007); A.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 731 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla.1999); G.L.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 724 So. 2d 1181, 1182 (Fla.1998). Section 39.510 allows a party who is affected by “an order of the court” to appeal the order. However, the legislature cannot authorize nonfinal appeals and…
-
D.W.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 833 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…pendency. STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ, concur. . There is no written ruling on the order denying the second motion. Orally, the court denied it as untimely. Although denial for untimeliness was improper, see A.G. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 731 So. 2d 1260, 1261-62 (Fla.1999), the court had denied the father's earlier motion, on the merits, raising the same issue.…
-
M.E.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 754 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ment.1 An adjudication of dependency pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, may be challenged on appeal either from the order of adjudication or from the subsequent final disposition order. See A.G. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 731 So. 2d 1260 (Fla.1999). An order adjudicating a child dependent must contain specific facts supporting the adjudication. See McKenzie v. Department of [*881] Health and Rehabilitative Services, 663 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In the instant case, an order…
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
- Moore v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 664 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- G.L.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 724 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1998)
- G.L.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 700 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- A.G. and D.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 707 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- O'Rourke v. State, 707 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)