M.M., FATHER OF E.M., J.M., AND M.M., JR., CHILDREN

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 5D2026-0461 LT Case No. 2025-DP-000057

M.M., Father of E.M., J.M., and M.M., Jr., Children,

Appellant,

V.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County. Rose Marie K. Preddy, Judge.

Natalie S. H. Kelley, of Law Office of Natalie S. Hall Kelley, Saint Augustine, for Appellant.

Rachel Batten, of Children's Legal Services, Brooksville, for Appellee.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Jaime Michelle Generazzo, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division,of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, and Allison J. McCabe, of Defending Best Interests, Port Orange, for Guardian ad Litem o/b/o E.M., J.M., and M.M., Jr.

August 26, 2026

PER CURIAM.

M.M., the Father of E.M., J.M., and M.M., Jr., appeals the trial court's order adjudging these three children dependent and placing them in foster care. We affirm.

Sufficient for our purposes, the Department of Children and Families filed its verified petition for dependency arguing protection of the children was necessary in part because they had been abused, abandoned, or neglected as defined in section 39.01(15)(a), Florida Statutes (2025), and were at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect as contemplated by section 39.01(15)(f). In a thorough order, the trial court granted the petition, finding “[t]he children have been abused or are at substantial risk of imminent abuse." As a result, the court adjudged the children dependent and placed them in the care of the Department for protective supervision in an out-of-home placement. This appeal followed.

Our review presents a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court's order will be sustained if the lower court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence. See S.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 328 So. 3d 30, 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021). We have previously noted that a trial court's discretion in cases regarding a child's welfare is “very broad,” and we "[do] not conduct a de novo review of evidence or substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court.” D.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 773 So. 2d 615, 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

Here, Father argues reversal is required because the Department failed to present sufficient evidence to support an adjudication of dependency. We disagree. Sufficient evidence exists in the record to affirm the trial court's decision. Following the serious domestic violence giving rise to the case before us, the children's Mother resumed residing with the Father and initially did not disclose her or the children's whereabouts when requested by the Department. After initially telling the Department that she and the children were residing in Texas, the Mother changed her story and indicated they would soon be moving to Texas. Ultimately, when investigators spoke to the children, the children told them that the Father and Mother “fight with their hands a lot," including an incident that occurred “that morning.” These facts in the record before us are sufficient to support the trial court's findings and resulting adjudication of dependency. Thus, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR and SOUD, JJ., concur. MACIVER, J., dissents with opinion.