D.T. MOTHER OF N.N., A MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. As to the statutory findings, we are compelled to affirm, because the appellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected. See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Affirmed.
KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. v. King, 66 So. 3d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…a motion for rehearing, motion to vacate, or motion for relief from judgment in an attempt to correct this error; consequently, Appellants failed to preserve their otherwise meritorious argument. See, e.g., D.T. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding appellant failed to preserve argument that court’s order was deficient due to lack of statutorily required findings because she did not file a motion for rehearing); Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So. 3d 648, 650…
-
J.S. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 75 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…9) (Webster, J., dissenting). By contrast, orders on post-dependency motions that fully resolve the issues raised in the motion are generally reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See D.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming order denying motion for reunification); R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (finding jurisdiction to review post-disposition dependency order pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), and reje…
-
Nedge Nora Turnier v. Stockman, 139 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ardian in this circumstance, “all of us here would be in agreement that it would be nice to have someone whose only perspective was that of the child’s.” We find this insufficient to preserve the issue. Cf. D.T. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming statutory findings in dependency case where appellant “failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it co…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Owens v. Owens, 973 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Dukene Myrtil v. State, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)