E.S., NATURAL MOTHER OF D.H. AND C.F., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT
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 First District Court of Appeal affirmed orders adjudicating two children as dependents, finding the mother engaged in egregious conduct but rejecting termination of her parental rights as not being in the children's manifest best interests. The case arose after the mother's boyfriend severely burned one child in scalding water and medical treatment was delayed.
The court affirmed the adjudication of dependency and the finding of egregious conduct by the mother. The court affirmed the trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions that termination of parental rights was not in the children's manifest best interests, thereby denying DCF's cross-appeal requesting termination.
[1] A trial court's adjudication of dependency and findings of egregious conduct will be affirmed on appeal if supported by the record.
[2] A trial court's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the manifest best interests of children in a parental rights termination case will be affirmed on appeal…
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 intelligence“This dependency commenced when the children were placed in shelter care after one of the children, D.H., sustained extremely serious burns by being placed in a bathtub of scalding water by the mother's boyfriend and, despite the seriousness of the injuries, the mother and her boyfriend delayed seeking medical treatment for the child.”
Establishes the factual basis for dependency—the mother's failure to seek timely medical treatment for the child's severe injuries.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOne child, D.H., sustained extremely serious burns when placed in a bathtub of scalding water by the mother's boyfriend. Despite the severity of the i…
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 Material Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, E.S., the natural mother of D.H. and C.F., challenges orders (1) adjudicating D.H. and C.F. dependent and ratifying the finding of the general master that the mother engaged m egregious conduct, but rejecting the general master’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children and instead finding that termination is not in the manifest interests of the children, and (2) approving the report of the general master on the disposition hearing and acceptance of a case plan. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the manifest interests of the children did not support termination. The orders on appeal were entered after DCF sought termination of the mother’s parental rights following a period of dependency. This dependency commenced when the children were placed in shelter care after one of the children, D.H., sustained extremely serious burns by being placed in a bathtub of scalding water by the mother’s boyfriend and, despite the seriousness of the injuries, the mother and her boyfriend delayed seeking medical treatment for the child.
We affirm all issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal. Specifically, we affirm the trial court’s orders which adjudicated the children dependent and accepted the general master’s findings as to egregious conduct. We also affirm the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions as to the manifest best interests of the children, and therefore deny the relief requested in the cross-appeal.
We write to clarify that the mother, or another party to the proceeding, may petition for a return of the children, who have been placed in the long-term custody of relatives, to the mother’s custody. § 39.622(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). The re-establishment of any custodial privileges will require proof by the mother of a material change in circumstances, as well as proof that custody by the mother is in the children’s best interest. Id.; see also A.L. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 805 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 932 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ldren, and the order on appeal will not act as any bar to that proceeding. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order subject to E.D.’s right to petition for return of the children under section 39.622(4). See E.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 856 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Affirmed. FULMER, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of J.C. and W.B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 805 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)