Y.G., MOTHER OF M.N., ET AL., 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 mother appealed a dependency order, and while the court affirmed the adjudication of dependency, it found that the written order's findings of abuse did not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement finding prospective neglect. The case was remanded to correct the written findings to match the oral pronouncement.
The adjudication of dependency based on prospective neglect was affirmed as supported by competent substantial evidence, but the written order must be amended to conform with the trial court's oral pronouncement that the basis was prospective neglect, not abuse caused by domestic violence.
[1] A written order of dependency must be amended to conform with the trial court's oral pronouncement regarding the basis for dependency.
[2] An adjudication of dependency based on prospective neglect will be affirmed if competent substantial evidence supports the finding.
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“The written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the core holding that written orders must match the trial court's oral pronouncement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court found that domestic violence between the mother and her paramour occurred in the presence of the children and that the mother refused …
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 Prospective Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
.PLEUS, J.
This is an appeal of a dependency order entered as to the mother. Although we affirm the adjudication, we agree with the mother that the order of dependency finding evidence of abuse should be corrected to conform with the oral pronouncement that the basis' of the dependency was a finding of prospective neglect.
As the mother • points out, the , trial court’s oral pronouncement at the adjudication hearing differs from the finding made in the written order of .dependency. In its oral pronouncement, the trial court concluded that the Department had met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, prospective neglect by the mother. In its written order filed subsequent to the disposition hearing, the trial court found that the domestic violence between the mother and her paramour caused the children to suffer abuse. The written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement. D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); NM. v. Department of Children and Families, 785 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
The fact that a remand is necessary to have the written order amended does not mean that the underlying adjudication of dependency, based on prospective neglect, must be reversed. To the contrary, competent substantial evidence of prospective neglect was presented at the hearing; The children’s health was in dan’ger of being significantly impaired by the acts of domestic violence that took place in the children’s presence and by the mother’s refusal to end her troubled relationship with the paramour. § 39.01(45), Fla. Stat. (2001); D.D. v. Department of Children and Families, 773 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
The adjudication of dependency is affirmed, but this case is remanded for entry of written findings consistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. On remand, the trial court is reminded that a disposition order for an out-of-home placement must contain a written determination in accordance with section 39.521(l)(f), Florida Statutes (2001). Such a disposition order should be entered, if same has not been entered during the pendency of this appeal.
DEPENDENCY AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
PETERSON and PALMER, 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)…he scrivener’s error should be corrected to reflect the agreement of the parties and the court’s oral pronouncement. To the extent that the order needs clarification, we remand the matter to the trial court. See Y.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Of more significance, B.C. argues that section 39.01(14)(a) was not intended to allow children to be found dependent when the allegations are against only one parent and there exists another fit non-offending parent willing to…
-
P.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 865 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…nowledge the findings of abuse by the father set forth in the order do not comport with Judge Mize’s oral pronouncement from the adjudicatory hearing. Ordinarily we would remand for a corrected order. See Y.G. v. Department of Children and Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (remand was necessary to correct dependency order so that it conformed with oral pronouncement that basis for dependency was prospective neglect, not abuse as stated in the order): However, we decline to do so because of the ser…
-
Earl v. Earl, 174 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…and agrees that the final judgment failed to include this requirement. We therefore reverse and remand to allow the trial court to include the former husband’s requirement to maintain $100,000 in life insurance. Y.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 830 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“The written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.”). We affirm on the alimony issue. Reversed and Remanded. KLINGENSMITH, J., and ROBY, WILLIAM L., Associate Judge, concur.…
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
- D.D. as Parent of E.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 773 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Daversa v. Beverly Enters. Fla., Inc., 785 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- N.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 785 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)