Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

E.S. v. Department of Children & Families856 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) · 1D03-0293

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2003-10-17
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Mother

Affirmed Dependency and egregious-conduct findings affirmed, as was the ruling that termination was not in the children's best interests; the mother may seek custody later.

Issues
Dependency adjudication: sufficiency of evidence, TPR ground: egregious conduct, Manifest best interests, Permanency goals other than reunification
Facts
Physical abuse or injury, Medical neglect, Relative or grandparent caregiver
Law cited
§ 39.622(4)

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, E.S., the natural mother of D.H. and C.F., challenges orders (1) adjudicating D.H. and C.F. dependent and ratifying the finding of the general master that the mother engaged m egregious conduct, but rejecting the general master’s finding that termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interests of the children and instead finding that termination is not in the manifest interests of the children, and (2) approving the report of the general master on the disposition hearing and acceptance of a case plan. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the manifest interests of the children did not support termination. The orders on appeal were entered after DCF sought termination of the mother’s parental rights following a period of dependency. This dependency commenced when the children were placed in shelter care after one of the children, D.H., sustained extremely serious burns by being placed in a bathtub of scalding water by the mother’s boyfriend and, despite the seriousness of the injuries, the mother and her boyfriend delayed seeking medical treatment for the child. We affirm all issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal. Specifically, we affirm the trial court’s orders which adjudicated the children dependent and accepted the general master’s findings as to egregious conduct. We also affirm the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions as to the manifest best interests of the children, and therefore deny the relief requested in the cross-appeal.

We write to clarify that the mother, or another party to the proceeding, may petition for a return of the children, who have been placed in the long-term custody of relatives, to the mother’s custody. § 39.622(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). The re-establishment of any custodial privileges will require proof by the mother of a material change in circumstances, as well as proof that custody by the mother is in the children’s best interest. Id.; see also A.L. v. *1094Department of Children and Family Services, 805 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ CONCUR.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.