D.S., MOTHER OF S.S., S.S., S.S., ETC, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL., 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 dependency case, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding that children were dependent due to the mother's neglect (failure to secure suitable housing), but not due to paternal abandonment. The court upheld placement of three children with the non-offending father in California and the requirement that the mother obtain counseling.
The court affirmed that the evidence supported the finding that the father did not abandon the children; that placement with the non-offending parent is required under Florida Statute § 39.521(3)(b) absent evidence of endangerment; and that the counseling requirement was not an abuse of discretion because the mother's situation resulted from more than lack of finances.
[1] A trial court's dependency ruling is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by…
[2] In dependency cases, a child shall be placed with a non-offending parent who desires custody, absent a showing that such placement would endanger the child's safety, well…
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 court's final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record”
Establishes the standard of review for dependency findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Children and Family Services petitioned for a dependency order, alleging that the mother neglected the children by failing to secure…
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 Case cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
D.S. the mother, appeals the trial court’s orders in this dependency case. The Department of Children and Family Services (“Department”) petitioned for an order of dependency alleging among other things that the mother neglected the children by failing to secure suitable housing. It further alleged that the father had abandoned the children. The trial court found that the children were not dependent with respect to the father, but that they were dependent with respect to the mother. The mother conceded dependency at the adjudicatory hearing, but appeals the trial court’s determination that the children had not been abandoned by the father, its order that three of the couple’s children be placed with the father in California, and its order that the mother obtain counseling.
At the adjudicatory hearing, the court heard testimony about the father’s efforts to remain in contact with the children, the mother’s apparent efforts to thwart that contact, the father’s efforts to gain employment, and the father’s (less than stellar) efforts to support the children. Based on that testimony, we conclude that the evidence supports the trial court’s determination, and that it cannot be said that as a matter of law, the father abandoned the children. See In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla.2000) (“A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record”).
The court properly placed the younger children with the father. Section 39.521(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires placement with a non-offending parent in the absence of a showing that the child would be endangered thereby:
If there is a parent with whom the child was not residing at the time the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the jurisdiction of the court who desires to assume custody of the child, the court shall place the child with that parent upon completion of a home study, unless the court finds that such placement would endanger the safety, well-being, or physical, mental or emotional health of the child.
This court held in M.M. v. Department of Children and Families, 777 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), that the best interest standard does not apply under this section, and that in the absence of evidence of endangerment, the non-offending parent is entitled to custody. Furthermore, the trial court found it would be better if the children lived with the father than in separate locations with non-relatives.
At the disposition hearing, the mother’s counsel objected to the fact that the father provided his own “home study,” stating, “I don’t think that’s the way the statute really intends this to be done.” On appeal, the mother contends that the home study must be conducted by the Department. Even if the statute contemplates a professional home study, we think the mother, who does not contend that there is anything spurious about the home study and who had ample prior opportunity to object to the home study, waived this issue by failing to raise it until the disposition hearing. Cf., Ingersoll v. Hoffman, 589 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1991).
Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in approving that part of the case plan that requires the mother to obtain counseling. The record supports the trial court’s finding that the mother’s situation was not solely a result of lack of finances.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of K.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 946 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ard does not apply. See L.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 871 So. 2d 306, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (stating that “in the absence of evidence of endangerment, the non-offending parent is entitled to custody”); D.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 832 So. 2d 838, 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (same); B.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 864 So. 2d 486, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“The non-offending parent’s presumptive right to custody is mandatory and- not subject to a separate determination of the child’s best in…
-
L.P. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 871 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…Families, 777 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The “best interest” standard does not apply under this section, and in the absence of evidence of endangerment, the non-offending parent is entitled to custody. See D.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 832 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). A natural parent cannot be denied custody of his child unless evidence demonstrates compelling reasons that the parent is unfit or otherwise unable to exercise custody, and that placing the child with the parent would endanger t…
-
G.S.H. v. K.H., 884 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…on is not optional with the court — the statute says the court “shall” make such a placement. Id. at 1212 (citations omitted); see also L.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 871 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); D.S. v. Dep’t. of Children & Families, 832 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Roberts v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 687 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In making its decision below, the trial court used the improper standard of “best interest of the child” and did not make the indispensable finding…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.F. and M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000)
- Ingersoll v. Warren Hoffman, D.D.S., 589 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1991)
- M.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 777 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)