T.M., MOTHER OF A.S., B.S., Z.S., A.S., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
The court held that a dependency adjudication order must contain written findings of fact to support the adjudication.
[1] A trial court must set forth written findings of fact to support an adjudication of dependency.
[2] Failure to include written findings of fact supporting a dependency adjudication requires vacation of the order and remand.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother appealed a trial court's order adjudicating her four children dependent. The trial court stated findings on the record regarding the mother…
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 Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
T.M. (mother) appeals the final order entered by the trial court adjudicating four of her children dependent. We agree with the mother that the trial court erred in failing to set forth findings of fact to support the adjudication. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand this matter for entry of a proper order. Section 39.507(6) of the Florida Statutes (1999) requires the trial court to set forth written findings of fact which support an adjudication of dependency. Rule 8.330(g) of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure sets forth a similar requirement. Our court has consistently held that in cases where the trial court has failed to set forth written findings to support its dependency adjudication, the matter must be vacated and remanded with instructions to the trial court to provide such findings. J.C.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 780 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); L.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 766 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Here, the trial court set forth written findings explaining the reasons why the children were dependent as to the father. However, as for the mother, the trial court stated on the record its finding that the mother’s conduct constituted abandonment sufficient to warrant a finding of dependency, but the court failed to set forth these findings in the dependency order. While the evidence of record is sufficient to sustain the court’s ruling, the instant matter must be remanded with instructions to the trial court to provide written reasons supporting its finding of dependency. See J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 801 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(holding that although the court disagreed with the father’s contention that the evidence introduced during the dependency hearing was insufficient to support a finding of dependency, the adjudication order was vacated and the cause remanded because the trial court failed to set forth sufficient written finding to support its dependency adjudication).
Order VACATED; cause REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…32(a) and section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2011). See E.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); M.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 827 So. 2d 1089,1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 813 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 801 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); J.C.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 780 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s Revised Adjudication Order as…
-
T.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 954 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…P. 8.330(g). This court has consistently [*681] held that failure to comply with this directive will result in the order being vacated and the case remanded for entry of a proper order or for a new hearing. See, T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 813 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); J.C.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 780 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that although there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of dependency, failure to include sufficient facts in the order to support the…
Authorities Cited
- J.C.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 780 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- L.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 766 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 801 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)