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.B. v. Department of Children & Families54 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) · 4D10-2721

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2011-03-09
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Reversed & remanded Dependency order reversed on DCF's confession because it lacked the specific facts and legal basis required by rule 8.332, even though reasons were stated orally.

Issue
Written findings & sufficiency of the order
Law cited
Rule 8.332(a)

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

On CourtListener
MAY, J.

A father appeals a supplemental order entered after the child was adjudicated dependent as to the mother, based upon her consent after mediation. He argues the trial court’s order fails to comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332 because it does not state with specificity the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based nor the requisite legal conclusions. The Department of Children and Families has confessed error.1 We reverse.

Rule 8.332(a) provides:

In all cases in which dependency is established, the court shall enter a written order stating the legal basis for a finding of dependency, specifying the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based, and stating whether the court made the finding by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence. The court shall include the dates of the adjudicatory hearing, if any, in the order.

Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.332(a) (emphasis added). The order in this case fails to comply with the rule. The order is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court to comply with Rule 8.332(a). We find no merit in the issue on cross-appeal.

Reversed.

STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

. The Guardian ad Litem suggests the lack of written findings does not warrant a reversal because the trial court stated its reasons on the record. We disagree.

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