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

DT v. Department of Children & Families54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) · 1D10-5313

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2011-02-24
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Mother

Affirmed Denial of reunification affirmed; evidence supported detriment finding and the mother failed to preserve her claim of missing statutory findings by seeking rehearing.

Issues
Reunification, Preservation & fundamental error
Law cited
§ 39.621(10) (now § 39.621(10)(c))

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 this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. As to the statutory findings, we are compelled to affirm, because the appellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected. See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.

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