E.B., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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 court held that the trial court's order adjudicating dependency failed to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332(a) by not stating specific facts and legal conclusions.
A father appealed a supplemental order adjudicating his child dependent based on the mother's consent after mediation. The father argued the order lac…
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.
A father appeals a supplemental order entered after the child was adjudicated dependent as to the mother, based upon her consent after mediation. He argues the trial court’s order fails to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332 because it does not state with specificity the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based nor the requisite legal conclusions. The Department of Children and Families has confessed error.1 We reverse.
Rule 8.332(a) provides:
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. The court shall include the dates of the adjudicatory hearing, if any, in the order.
Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.332(a) (emphasis added). The order in this case fails to comply with the rule. The order is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court to comply with Rule 8.332(a). We find no merit in the issue on cross-appeal.
Reversed.
STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of C.Z. and A.Z. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 106 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…alluded to testimony and evidence was conflicting) (Shepherd, J., concurring specially) (“In a dependency case, oral findings in the record may not be relied upon to cure an otherwise defective written order.”); E.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 1090, 1090 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (rejecting guardian ad litem’s suggestion that reversal was unnecessary when trial court made oral findings). This is because the required findings serve important purposes aside from appellate review. The findings ar…
-
A.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 86 So. 3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…did not set forth with specificity the facts upon which the court’s finding of dependency was based, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332(a) and section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2011). See E.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); M.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 827 So. 2d 1089,1090 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 813 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 801 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 20…