A.N.B., MOTHER OF J.T.N., A CHILD, 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.
A maternal grandmother appealed an order adjudicating her minor grandson dependent. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of neglect and lack of parental capacity for supervision and care, despite deficiencies in the abuse and abandonment findings.
The appellate court affirmed the dependency adjudication because competent, substantial evidence supported findings of neglect and lack of parental capacity for supervision and care. While the child's preference alone cannot be the basis for dependency, it was not the sole basis here. The exclusion of the boyfriend as a witness constituted harmless error because the mother failed to establish its potential significance.
[1] A finding of dependency may be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence on at least one of the grounds alleged in the petition, even if other grounds are…
[2] A child may be adjudicated dependent if no parent or legal custodian is capable of providing supervision and care.
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“a child can also be dependent if the child is found 'to have no parent or legal custodians capable of providing supervision and care'”
Establishes an alternative ground for dependency beyond abuse, abandonment, and neglect—lack of parental capacity for supervision and care.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.N. was nineteen days short of his seventeenth birthday when the dependency order was entered on June 7, 2010. The trial court found dependency based…
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 Action cases and more on FLexlaw
In this private dependency action filed by the maternal grandparents, A.N.B., (“the mother”), appeals an order adjudicating her son, J.N., dependent. J.N. was nineteen days short of his seventeenth birthday when the order was entered on June 7, 2010. A.N.B. claims: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding of dependency; (2) that the trial court improperly based its ruling on the child’s preference; and (3) that the trial court improperly excluded her boyfriend as a witness. We affirm.
With respect to the first issue, while we agree that the trial court’s findings regarding abuse and abandonment fall short, its finding of neglect is fully supported by the record. In addition, A.N.B. fails to challenge a fourth ground for dependency — that there was no parent capable of supervision and care — and the evidence supports a dependency finding on this issue as well. See C.D. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 816 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming in part on ground that “a child can also be dependent if the child is found ‘to have no parent or legal custodians capable of providing supervision and care’ ” after trial court found that dependent teenage mother was unable to care for her child).1 Because competent, substantial evidence supports two of the four dependency grounds alleged in the petition, we affirm as to this issue.
With respect to the second issue, we agree that the child’s preference is not a valid basis for a finding of dependency, but this was not the sole basis for the court’s dependency finding. Rather, as discussed above, the dependency finding was based upon competent, substantial evidence of neglect, along with a finding that no parent was capable of supervising and caring for the child in the future.
Finally, A.N.B. argues that the trial court erred in excluding her boyfriend as a witness at the dependency hearing. Although appellees concede that this evi-dentiary ruling was in error, the mother failed to proffer the proposed witness’ tes*1051timony below or explain its potential significance on appeal. Thus, she has failed to establish reversible error as to this point on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.