J.T., MOTHER OF A.U. AND K.U., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
Mother appeals trial court's orders adjudicating her two minor children dependent based on allegations of abuse and neglect. The appellate court reverses because there was insufficient evidence to support the findings and the orders lacked required factual findings, with both the Department and Guardian ad Litem conceding the insufficiency of evidence.
The court reverses both orders because there was insufficient evidence to support the adjudication of K.U. as dependent, and the order as to A.U. was facially deficient, lacking any factual findings to support the conclusion of abuse and the finding that Mother lacked parenting skills necessary for a safe environment.
[1] A dependency order must state the facts upon which the finding of dependency is made.
[2] Failure to make statutorily required factual findings in a dependency order requires that the adjudication be vacated.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 order was facially deficient and/or that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings”
States the core allegation of error in the appeal
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 Families filed a dependency petition against Mother, alleging she neglected child A.U. through her alleged abuse of chi…
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
Appellant, J.T. (Mother), appeals the trial court’s Order of Adjudication of Dependency as to K.U. and Supplemental Order of Adjudication as to A.U. Appellant alleges the order was facially deficient and/or that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings. For the reasons explained below, we agree and reverse.
Commendably, both the Florida Department of Children and Families (Department) and the Guardian ad Litem concede that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order. Our review of the order and the record leads us to agree; consequently, the order adjudicating K.U. dependent is reversed.
As to A.U., although the Department apparently sought an adjudication of dependency and the title of the trial court’s order indicates it is a “Supplemental Order of Adjudication” as to A.U., in the body of the order the trial court simply finds that the Mother abused A.U. but does not indicate whether A.U. was in fact adjudicated dependent. Further, the order is devoid of any factual findings to support the trial court’s conclusion that the Mother abused A.U. and lacks “the parenting skills necessary to provide the child with a safe and secure living environment.” Consequently, the order lacks any factual findings to adjudicate A.U. dependent as to the Mother. This alone warrants reversal. See M.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 827 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding a “circuit court’s dependency order ‘must state the facts upon which the finding is made’ ” and the “[f]ailure to make the statutorily required findings of fact requires that the adjudication be vacated.”) (quoting T.S. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Serv’s, 557 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)).
In the dependency petition, the Department alleged the Mother neglected A.U. by virtue of her alleged abuse of K.U. To the extent this was the basis for the trial court’s finding that the Mother abused A.U. and that she lacks adequate parenting skills, such a finding requires reversal, as there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Mother either abused or neglected K.U.
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s Order of Adjudication of Dependency as to K.U. and Supplemental Order of Adjudication as to A.U. is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED with instructions to the trial court to vacate the order.
BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., 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)…ndency where the order in the case failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332(a)); accord T.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 979 So. 2d 1202, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also J.T. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Families, 48 So. 3d 931, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversing adjudication of dependency on the ground the order is devoid of any factual finding to support the trial court’s conclusion that the mother abused A.U. and lacks “the parenting skills necessary to provide the chil…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of T.S. and M.H.W. v. State, 557 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- M.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 827 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)