AFFIRMED. See A.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 118 So.3d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court’s order,
C.S.C-D. v. Department of Children & Families148 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) · 5D14-1985
- Court
- 5th DCA
- Decided
- 2014-10-20
Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.
Cited by 1 opinion
In this collection (1)
- D.P. v. Department of Children & Families 2D2022-3836 · 2nd DCA 2023Certiorari / writ granted Order denying the father's reunification motion was quashed because it lacked written findings on each s. 39.621(10)(c) factor, and no rehearing motion was needed to preserve the issue.
From CourtListener's citation data, every court it covers, which can miss citations (in short or unpublished orders especially).
Cites 3 opinions in this collection
Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.
- A.M. v. Department of Children & Families 1D13-618 · 1st DCA 2013Judicial review order affirmed because the record showed no motion for reunification and the mother did not preserve claimed deficiencies in statutory findings.
- DT v. Department of Children & Families 1D10-5313 · 1st DCA 2011Denial of reunification affirmed; evidence supported detriment finding and the mother failed to preserve her claim of missing statutory findings by seeking rehearing.
- R.B. v. Department of Children & Families 5D08-1869 · 5th DCA 2008Denial of the mother's motion to set aside her surrender affirmed; duress was unproven and the general master properly took the acknowledgment.