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

A.N. v. Department of Children & Families782 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) · 2D00-1194

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2001-03-30
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother

Affirmed in part, reversed in part Termination affirmed for two children but reversed for the third because the case plan ground requires a prior dependency adjudication that was not shown.

Issue
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse
Law cited
§ 39.806(1)(e) (now § 39.806(1)(e)1.)

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

On CourtListener
SALCINES, Judge.

The mother, A.N., appeals an order terminating the parental rights to her three children, A.C.N., D.S., and I.K.N.1 We affirm the termination order in regard to A.C.N. and D.S. However, we are compelled to reverse the termination order as to I.K.N.

The termination order at issue was based exclusively on section 39.806(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1999). That section presupposes a prior adjudication of dependency. In the present case, the Department of Children and Families did not establish that I.K.N. had previously been adjudicated dependent and nothing in the record before this court demonstrates that there had, in fact, been a prior adjudication of dependency as to I.K.N. Indeed, the termination order did not contain a factual finding that I.K.N. had previously been adjudicated dependent although it contained such a finding in regard to both A.C.N. and D.S. Thus, the order terminating A.N.’s parental rights as to I.K.N. was clearly erroneous.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

. Each child has a different father. A.C.N.’s and D.S.'s fathers have previously had their parental rights terminated. The father of I.K.N. is unknown. The fathers’ parental rights are not at issue in this appeal,

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