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

Fielder v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services596 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) · 5D91-1429

Court
5th DCA
Decided
1992-04-03
Law cited
§ 39.409(3)
On CourtListener
596 So.2d 520 (1992)

William FIELDER, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 91-1429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 3, 1992.

Richard I. Wallsh of Troum & Wallsh, Winter Park, for appellant.

Patricia A. Savitz, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Orlando, for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

The father of two children sexually abused an unrelated minor child in the father's care. Based solely on that conduct the father's natural children were adjudicated dependent, their custody taken from the father, and his visitation rights restricted. The order of dependency was on a form providing for no findings of fact and none were made in the order. We reverse, finding that the evidence before the trial court was legally insufficient to support a finding that the father's natural children were at risk[1] and that the order of dependency failed to state facts to support the conclusion reached as required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes, see Luszczyk v. H.R.S., 576 So.2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Williams v. H.R.S., 568 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sigafoos v. H.R.S., 567 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). See also, In re I.T., 532 So.2d 1085 (Fla.3d DCA 1988); In re D.M.S., 528 So.2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Fitzpatrick v. H.R.S., 515 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); In re G.D.H., 498 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); In re C.S., 503 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Cf. Castellanos v. H.R.S., 545 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (order tracked the facts in the petition of dependency); Hardy v. H.R.S., 568 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (order referred to a previous order containing facts).

REVERSED.

HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] H.R.S., appellee, argues "prospective abuse" citing Palmer v. H.R.S., 547 So.2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), cause dis'm., 553 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 1989).

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