P.H., FATHER OF A.H., A CHILD, 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.
A father appeals from an order finding his child dependent but withholding adjudication of that dependency. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's order failed to contain the required findings of fact and legal basis for the dependency determination as mandated by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330(g).
The order is legally insufficient and must be reversed and remanded because it does not contain the required findings of fact and does not state the legal ground for the finding of dependency. The appellate court will review the sufficiency of the evidence once the trial court enters a proper order on remand.
[1] A trial court's order finding a child dependent must contain written findings of fact and state the legal basis for the dependency determination.
[2] A trial court's order must specify the facts upon which a finding of dependency is based.
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“In all cases in which dependency is established, the court shall enter a written order stating the legal basis for a finding of dependency, specifying the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based and stating whether the court made the finding by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.”
This quote establishes the mandatory procedural requirement under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330(g) that the trial court violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father and the child's mother (the child's primary residential parent) had ongoing visitation disputes following their divorce. The Department of …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, W„ J.
P.H., the father of A.H., appeals from the order of the trial court which found A.H. was dependent as to the father but withheld adjudication of dependency. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A).1
The record in this case reflects that the father and the child’s mother (AH.’s primary residential parent) have been involved in ongoing visitation problems since their divorce. The Department charged the father with abuse primarily on the basis of his alleged drinking problem and threatening behavior toward A.H. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the judge found the Department had proven its allegations against the father by a “very, very, very narrow margin.” The Department drafted a proposed order which contained findings that the father has caused emotional injury to A.H. by his abusive acts and adjudicated A.H. dependent. The father objected to the adjudication of dependency, arguing that an adjudication could hamper his ability to maintain employment. The Department agreed to a withholding of adjudication of dependency.
The father also disputed the findings of fact in the proposed order. The judge crossed through these findings and wrote that she was incorporating by reference her findings made at the adjudicatory hearing.
On appeal, the father contends this order is legally insufficient because it does not contain any findings and does not state the legal ground for the finding of dependency. Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(g).2 The Department concedes the order is insufficient and the cause must be remanded for a proper order.3
Accordingly, we remand for the entry of an order setting forth the court’s findings of fact and the legal basis for the finding of dependency. We will review the sufficiency of the evidence after we have received this order. REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . See R.B. v. Department of Children and Families, 799 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); F.R. v. Department of Children and Families, 763 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330(g) provides:
Findings and Orders. In all cases in which dependency is established, the court shall enter a written order stating the legal basis for a finding of dependency, specifying the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based and stating whether the court made the finding by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.
. We reject the Department’s argument that the court on remand must adjudicate dependency because, among other reasons, the Department specifically agreed to the withholding of adjudication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.C. and H.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 11 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the dependency and disposition order. The Department concedes error, and we reverse. We have jurisdiction to review the order finding the children to be dependent but withholding adjudication of dependency. See P.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 901 So. 2d 277, 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); F.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 763 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- F.R. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 763 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- R.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 799 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)