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

Y.M. v. Department of Children & Families865 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) · 5D03-2947

Court
5th DCA
Decided
2004-02-20
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Other

Affirmed in part, reversed in part Dependency finding affirmed as supported by evidence, but remanded for the written order to state the evidentiary standard the court orally applied.

Issues
Dependency adjudication: sufficiency of evidence Affirmed, Written findings & sufficiency of the order Reversed & remanded
Law cited
Rule 8.330(g)

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 dependency action, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial judge’s finding of dependency. From our review of the evidence, we conclude that the findings of the trial judge are sufficient, and the trial judge’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Appellant also challenges the written dependency order because it fails to comply with rule 8.330(g) of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure by not stating “whether the court made the findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.” Appellant is correct. However, the trial court’s oral pronouncement clearly indicated that its findings of fact were based upon the preponderance of the evidence standard. We remand this cause, therefore, with instructions that the trial court enter an amended order reflecting its oral pronouncement on this issue. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

SHARP, W., MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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