C.J., THE FATHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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 Father appeals from a trial court order adjudicating his infant child dependent based on alleged neglect. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dependency adjudication, holding that the volatile domestic relationship between the parents creates an unstable environment that poses a risk to the child's safety and constitutes neglect under Florida law.
The court affirmed the dependency adjudication, concluding that competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the volatile domestic relationship between the parents creates an unstable environment that poses a risk to the child's safety, constituting neglect under section 39.01(50), Florida Statutes.
[1] A child may be found neglected and adjudicated dependent based on exposure to parental domestic violence and a volatile relationship that creates an unstable environment…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is not necessary to establish that the child saw or was aware of the domestic violence for a finding of neglect.”
Citing J.D. v. Department of Children & Families to support that direct exposure to violence need not be proven
The Father and the Child's mother maintain a volatile relationship characterized by ongoing domestic violence. The Father has anger issues, and the pa…
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 Child Dependency Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 10, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1298 Lower Tribunal No. 19-15393 ________________ C.J., the Father,
Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia B. Caballero, Judge. Law Offices of Roger Ally, P.A., and Roger Ally, for appellant. Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; and The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, and Christopher V. Carlyle (Orlando); and Thomasina Moore (Tallahassee), for appellee Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program. Before HENDON, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
C.J., the Father (“the Father”), appeals from an order adjudicating his infant child, I.J. (“Child”), dependent. We affirm.
The Father contends that the trial court reversibly erred when it found the Child dependent under sections 39.01(15)(a) or (f), Florida Statutes (2020), arguing that the Department failed to establish that the Child was neglected or at imminent risk of neglect as defined in section 39.01(50), Florida Statutes (2020). We disagree.
The testimony at the adjudicatory hearing reflects that the Father has anger issues; the relationship between the Father and the Child’s mother, A.P. (“Mother”), is “volatile,” including ongoing domestic violence; and the Father and the Mother remain in a relationship. The trial court found that the “volatile relationship” between the Mother and Father creates “an unstable environment for the Child,” which “pose[s] a risk to the safety of the Child.”
Thus, based on the record before this Court and the trial court’s findings, we conclude that the trial court’s adjudication of dependency as to the Father was supported by competent substantial evidence. See § 39.01(50) (defining “neglect,” in part, as permitting a child to live in an environment that “causes the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired or to be in danger of being significantly impaired”); see also J.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 263 So. 3d 60, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“It is not necessary to establish that the child saw or was aware of the domestic violence for a finding of neglect.”); C.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 968 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“It is not always necessary that a child be physically present in the room in which an incident occurs to demonstrate neglect or risk of neglect.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- C.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 968 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- W.M v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)