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

N.E.R. v. Department of Children & Family Services11 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) · 2D08-3563

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2009-07-10
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Mother

Reversed Dependency finding with withheld adjudication, and the related treatment court order, reversed because DCF proved no abuse, neglect, imminent risk or harmful substance use.

Issue
Dependency adjudication: sufficiency of evidence
Facts
Parent's substance abuse
Law cited
§ 39.01(14)(a), (14)(f), (31)(g)2. (now § 39.01(15)(a), § 39.01(15)(f), § 39.01(37)(g)) · § 39.507(5)

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

On CourtListener
SILBERMAN, Judge.

N.E.R. appeals an order entitled “Order Withholding Adjudication and Disposition as to the Mother, [N.E.R.] (pursuant to § 39.507(5) Florida Statutes).” In the order, the trial court found the Mother’s two children, M.C. and H.C., to be dependent but withheld adjudication of dependency. The Mother also appeals an order that *1014requires her to participate in Family Dependency Treatment Court as a result of the dependency and disposition order. The Department concedes error, and we reverse.

We have jurisdiction to review the order finding the children to be dependent but withholding adjudication of dependency. See P.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 901 So.2d 277, 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); F.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 763 So.2d 478, 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

The Mother argues, and the Department concedes, that the Department failed to prove abuse, abandonment or neglect, or imminent risk thereof. See § 39.01(14)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (2007). The record supports the Department’s concession and that, it failed to prove the Mother’s “[cjontinued chronic and severe use of a controlled substance or alcohol” that “demonstrably adversely affected” her children. § 39.01(31)(g)(2); see also J.B.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 870 So.2d 946, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

We note that the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) does not concede error. With respect to the GAL’s argument concerning prospective abuse or neglect, the substantial risk of abuse or neglect to the child must be imminent. See § 39.01(14)(f); N.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 939 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The trial court did not make a finding of an imminent risk, and the Department failed to prove an imminent risk.

Therefore, we reverse the order finding the children dependent and withholding adjudication of dependency. We also reverse the order entered as a result of the dependency order that requires the Mother to participate in Family Dependency Treatment Court.

Reversed.

FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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