Adjudicatory hearings; orders of adjudication.§ 39.507
Related court rules: Rule 8.250 Examinations, evaluation, and treatment · Rule 8.330 Adjudicatory hearings · Rule 8.332 Order finding dependency · Rule 8.347 Motion to supplement order of adjudication, disposition order, and case plan · Rule 8.257 · Rule 8.315 · Rule 8.325 · Rule 8.335
136 opinions cite § 39.507
-
C.R. v. Department of Children & Family Services 53 So. 3d 240 · 3D09-2833 · 3rd DCA 2011
Order vacating a final withheld-adjudication dependency order reversed; the court should have kept it and made supplemental findings when the father later appeared.
…to our holdings. Because my colleagues have not agreed to do so, I submit the following to clearly state my position regarding the interpretation of section 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 39.507(7)(a) provides that “only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered. This order…
-
E.T. v. Department of Children & Families 268 So. 3d 821 · 2D18-2537 · 2nd DCA 2019
· cited by 1 in all courts
Findings that the father abused, abandoned and neglected the children affirmed, but disposition and case plan reversed for lack of notice and a separate hearing.
…in the petition against the Father. However, the court rejected the Father's argument that a separate disposition hearing was required under section 39.507(8) if it found that the Father had abused, abandoned, or neglected the children. And it agreed with the Department's argument that it need not find that the…
-
J.F. v. Department of Children & Families 6D2024-0105 · 6th DCA 2024
Finding that the father contributed to dependency reversed; 'risk of abuse' is the wrong standard and old corporal discipline did not show substantial imminent risk.
…5th DCA 2016). B. A trial court may adjudicate a child dependent based on the conduct of one parent, see § 39.507(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.315(a), but must also determine whether, at the time the child was adjudicated dependent, the other parent had…
-
Department of Children & Families v. J.J. 5D23-0655 · 5th DCA 2023
Denial of dependency reversed: judge refused to weigh child witnesses' credibility, required actual harm, and appeared partial; new hearing before a different judge.
… However, Father did not consent to dependency. As a result, DCF sought a supplemental adjudication of dependency as to Father under section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes. After Father’s attorney withdrew from the case, Father proceeded pro se. Before the supplemental adjudication hearing, the GAL…
-
D.D. v. Department of Children & Families 849 So. 2d 473 · 4D03-160 · 4th DCA 2003
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency adjudication affirmed; the 30-day deadline for the adjudicatory hearing in s. 39.507(1)(a) is directory, not mandatory, so dismissal was not required.
…contention that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the state failed to hold a dependency trial within thirty days as provided in section 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). The Department of Children and Families ("DCF") filed the petition for dependency against the father on June 6, 2002. Prior to his…
-
P.S. v. Department of Children & Families 4 So. 3d 719 · 5D08-3140 · 5th DCA 2009
· cited by 4 in all courts
A second dependency adjudication was improper under the statute, but requiring the father to complete a case plan was proper; remanded for a supplemental order.
…and that some of the incidents of sexual abuse occurred while the sons’ step-sister was residing in the same home as the two boys. Pursuant to section 39.507(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), it was improper for the trial court to enter a “second” order of adjudication of dependency. 1 As long as a court…
-
E.M.A. v. Department of Children & Families 795 So. 2d 183 · 1D99-3590 · 1st DCA 2001
Dependency affirmed on the father's untreated bipolar disorder and marijuana use posing imminent risk, with remand to revise the written order to adjudicate dependency.
…We affirm the finding of dependency and instruct the trial court, on remand, to revise its written order to adjudicate dependency pursuant to section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999). Department filed a petition for dependency in September 1997 alleging 1) that Appellant's two children (a daughter, then 2-½ years…
-
E.M.A. v. Department of Children & Families 795 So. 2d 183 · 1D99-3590-2 · 1st DCA 2001
· cited by 25 in all courts
Dependency affirmed on the father's untreated bipolar disorder and marijuana use posing imminent risk, with remand to revise the written order to adjudicate dependency.
…We affirm the finding of dependency and instruct the trial court, on remand, to revise its written order to adjudicate dependency pursuant to section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999). Department filed a petition for dependency in September 1997 alleging 1) that Appellant’s two children (a daughter, then 2-1/2…
-
K.S. v. Department of Children & Families 760 So. 2d 1068 · 5D99-2613 · 5th DCA 2000
· cited by 6 in all courts
Order withholding adjudication but keeping the child out of home reversed: no findings, no stipulation inquiry, no approved case plan before long-term relative placement.
…dependency but ordered that M.M. remain under the Department's protective supervision and in his present placement with his maternal grandparents. Sections 39.507(5) & (6), Florida Statutes (1999), provide: 39.507 Adjudicatory hearings; orders of adjudication. * * * (5) If the court finds that the child named in the…
-
A.T.N. v. Department of Children & Family Services 70 So. 3d 634 · 1D11-0543 · 1st DCA 2011
· cited by 4 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because a general magistrate cannot preside over an adjudicatory hearing and DCF presented only hearsay, no evidence of a stipulation violation.
…the recommended order adjudicating E.B. dependent in the order under review. A general magistrate cannot conduct an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes (2010). Section 39.507, which governs hearings adjudicating children dependent, provides that such hearings “shall be conducted by the judge…
-
C.B. v. Department of Children & Families 975 So. 2d 1158 · 5D07-2049 · 5th DCA 2008
· cited by 6 in all courts
Nonfinal appeal treated as certiorari; writ granted because the court could not reinstate supervision and remove never-adjudicated children without filing a new dependency action.
…after termination of supervision without following the statutory requirements governing new dependency actions. We agree. We start by noting that section 39.507, Florida Statutes, does not give the court "full authority" over a child that is not adjudicated dependent. See § 39.507(5) & (6), Fla. Stat. (2006). In…
-
Ford v. Ford 153 So. 3d 315 · 4D13-1369 · 4th DCA 2014
…is no provision in chapter 61 authorizing the trial court to order an addicted parent into drug counseling, which a dependency judge can do under section 39.507(10), Florida Statutes, just as there is no provision in chapter 61 to order a parent into any other sort of therapy or counseling to address other behaviors. As…
-
D.A. v. Department of Children & Families 84 So. 3d 1136 · 3D11-2540 · 3rd DCA 2012
· cited by 10 in all courts
Dependency adjudication affirmed; the father's untreated bipolar disorder and cocaine use risked imminent neglect, and prospective risk suffices for a second parent.
…supported by competent, substantial evidence. Furthermore, we reject DCF's confession of error based on the Fifth District's holding in P.S. that section 39.507(7) of the Florida Statutes prohibits a supplemental adjudication of dependency based on prospective abuse or neglect. [1] In P.S., as here, the mother…
-
D.G. v. Department of Children & Families 80 So. 3d 1063 · 5D11-2374 · 5th DCA 2012
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dependency adjudication as to the father reversed: the court rushed to disposition and relied on prospective harm instead of finding actual abuse or neglect.
…father. There was no separate petition or motion for supplemental adjudication filed.... This acknowledgement reflects the framework of section 39.507(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides: For as long as a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, only one order adjudicating each child…
-
Natural Parents of J.B. v. Department of Children & Family Services 780 So. 2d 6 · SC96171 · Florida Supreme Court 2001
· cited by 8 in all courts
Supreme Court answered certified question yes: the statute mandating closure of all termination hearings to the public is constitutional.
…upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing." § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998) (formerly section 39.408(2)(c)) (emphasis added). Dependency proceedings are the necessary predicate to TPR proceedings. However, section 39.809(4), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998) (formerly section…
-
A.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services 731 So. 2d 1260 · SC92-2 · Florida Supreme Court 1999
· cited by 9 in all courts
…orders declaring the petitioners' children dependent, we find the analysis of the statutory scheme to be the same for purposes of appealability. Under section 39.409(2)-(3), Florida Statutes (1997), the court has the authority to adjudicate as dependent any child who has been previously designated as dependent. [1] This…
-
Ash v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 649 So. 2d 305 · 5D93-1758 · 5th DCA 1995
· cited by 4 in all courts
…from an order determining children to be dependent. Because the order did not set out written findings of fact to support the order, as required by section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 8.330(g) Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, we must send the case back to the trial court. Although the court did later…
-
In Interest of T.S. 557 So. 2d 676 · 2D88-03319 · 2nd DCA 1990
· cited by 6 in all courts
…finding of dependency and that the court erred in adjudicating the children dependent without stating the factual basis for the finding as required by section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1987). We have considered the arguments and examined the record of these proceedings and find sufficient evidence to support the finding…
-
A.F. v. Department of Children & Family Services 86 So. 3d 1144 · 3D11-1784 · 3rd DCA 2012
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because the order did not specify the facts supporting the finding as rule 8.332(a) and section 39.507(6) require.
…with specificity the facts upon which the court’s finding of dependency was based, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332(a) and section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2011). See E.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); M.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 827…
-
J.L. v. Department of Children & Families 87 So. 3d 54 · 5D11-3114 · 5th DCA 2012
· cited by 1 in all courts
Supplemental dependency order reversed because the court applied the wrong standard, 'contributed to dependency', instead of whether the father abused, abandoned or neglected the child.
…to determine dependency in the instant case. We agree. *55 The proper standard is whether J.L. had “abused, abandoned, or neglected the child ....”§ 39.507(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011) (providing that when a child has already been found dependent as to one parent, “the court must determine whether each parent or legal…
-
M.T. v. Department of Children & Families 816 So. 2d 227 · 5D01-1302 · 5th DCA 2002
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dismissal of the dependency case reversed because the 30-day adjudicatory hearing deadline in sections 39.506 and 39.507 is directory, not jurisdictional.
…the outset of the April 12, 2001 adjudicatory hearing the parents renewed their motion to dismiss, asserting that the language contained in sections 39.506(1) and 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes, constitutes a speedy trial rule applicable to dependency actions and that the failure to commence trial within 30 days of the arraignment…
-
Dept. of Hlt. v. Zeigler 587 So. 2d 602 · 5D90-1351 · 5th DCA 1991
· cited by 1 in all courts
…as it often does, a valid order adjudicating dependency and committing the child to the temporary legal custody of HRS for placement in foster care (sections 39.409 and 39.41(1)(d), Florida Statutes), then, of course, upon the failure of HRS to prove its petition for permanent termination, the trial court may forthwith…
-
Hardy v. Dept. of HRS 568 So. 2d 1314 · 5D89-1735 · 5th DCA 1990
· cited by 11 in all courts
…that there was no evidence of neglect and that the order adjudicating the child dependent failed to set forth a supporting factual basis required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1987). We affirm the orders of the trial court. L.H. was diagnosed by the state's expert, a pediatrician, as suffering from "parental…
-
J.M. v. Department of Children & Families 4D20-2607 · 4th DCA 2021
Withholding adjudication of dependency reversed, on DCF's concession, because the mother still had uncompleted case plan tasks beyond supervision.
…Z.M., dependent as to the child’s mother but withholding adjudication of dependency. He argues the trial court erred in withholding adjudication under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2020), because the mother had uncompleted case plan tasks other than supervision. Some of those tasks included: finding stable housing and…
-
C.H.-c. v. Miami Herald Publishing Co. 262 So. 3d 226 · 3D18-1421 · 3rd DCA 2018
Certiorari denied; the court properly let a newspaper obtain a redacted transcript of a dependency judicial review hearing as a person with a proper interest.
…quash that order. ANALYSIS We first note that Chapter 39 hearings, including the one in question, are presumptively open to the public. § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). Court records required by Chapter 39, including dependency hearing transcripts or recordings, however, shall not be open to inspection…
-
J.B. v. Department of Children & Families 170 So. 3d 780 · SC14-1990 · Florida Supreme Court 2015
· cited by 26 in all courts
Supreme Court held the right to counsel in termination cases includes effective assistance, set a test and interim procedure, and approved denying this mother relief.
…hearings. See §§ 39.401(5) (shelter review hearing if placed with nonrelatives); 39.402 (shelter and shelter review hearing); 39.506 (arraignment); 39.507 (dependency adjudicatory hearing); 39.521 (disposition); 39.621 (permanency); 39.701(judicial review); 39.808 (advisory and pretrial); 39.809 (termination…
-
R.P. v. Department of Children & Families 945 So. 2d 612 · 4D06-3492 · 4th DCA 2006
· cited by 1 in all courts
Adjudication order vacated because it copied the petition's allegations as findings, many unproven or rejected orally, so remand for compliant findings.
…many of *613 those allegations were never proven at trial, and others were specifically rejected by the trial court in its oral ruling. Section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2005), generally requires the trial court to set forth the facts upon which a finding of dependency is made. Likewise, Florida Rule of…
-
In the Interest of T.B. v. Department of Children & Family Services 939 So. 2d 1192 · 2D05-6206 · 2nd DCA 2006
· cited by 8 in all courts
Dependency reversed because several changes of residence did not show actual or imminent neglect, and the written order lacked specific supporting facts.
…and prospective neglect. Discussion The Department is required to establish a child’s state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(a). “A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the…
-
31 Foster Children v. Bush 329 F.3d 1255 · CA11-02-10180 · 11th Cir. 2003
· cited by 336 in all courts
Eleventh Circuit held Adoption Act provisions create no enforceable rights and upheld Younger abstention in a foster children class action, while vacating some claims for mootness or lack of standing.
…outset of a child’s case. After the Department files a petition for dependency, the court holds an adjudicatory hearing as soon as practicable. Fla. Stat. § 39.507. If the facts alleged in the dependency petition are proven in the adjudicatory hearing and the child is determined to be dependent, the state court…
-
B.D. v. Department of Children & Families 797 So. 2d 1261 · 1D00-4229 · 1st DCA 2001
· cited by 4 in all courts
Dependency based on the mother's mental illness remanded for clarifying findings because the judge's oral remarks conflicted with the written adjudication.
…neglect, or abandonment sufficient to demonstrate a state of dependency must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence." E.M.A., 795 So.2d at 185 ; § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). Even in the absence of actual prior abuse, abandonment, or neglect, a finding of dependency can be made if the "imminence" requirement is…
-
J.C.G. v. Department of Children & Families 780 So. 2d 965 · 5D00-1964 · 5th DCA 2001
· cited by 13 in all courts
Abandonment-based dependency order vacated because it stated no factual findings; the evidence challenge and vagueness attack on the abandonment definition were rejected.
…order stating that the father had "abandoned the children." Unfortunately, the order failed to set forth any factual findings as to abandonment. Section 39.507(6) of the Florida Statutes (1999) requires the trial court to set forth findings of fact which support the adjudication of dependency: 39.507 Adjudicatory…
-
W.L. v. Department of Children & Family Services 776 So. 2d 339 · 1D00-878 · 1st DCA 2001
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency order vacated because it rested solely on the father's prior sex acts with other children; the court must consider all circumstances.
…I would not disturb the trial court’s finding of dependency. . This requirement has remained unchanged since it was first enacted in 1989. See § 39.409(3), Fla.Stat. (1989).
-
M.J.S. v. State 764 So. 2d 825 · 2D99-4898 · 2nd DCA 2000
· cited by 27 in all courts
…the evidence that the child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected or .is at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect. See §§ 39.01(14), 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). 1 Because the trial court is responsible for resolving disputes in the evidence and making findings of fact, the trial court’s findings…
-
M.F.G. v. Department of Children & Families 723 So. 2d 290 · 3D97-3539 · 3rd DCA 1998
· cited by 22 in all courts
…were in jeopardy. In order to adjudicate the daughter dependent, the department had to prove neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. [2] *293 See § 39.408(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997); Hardy v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). It succeeded in this endeavor. See…
-
A.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services 716 So. 2d 792 · 4D97-4231 · 4th DCA 1998
· cited by 4 in all courts
…failed to comply with the terms of the mediation agreement. The trial court adjudicated the children dependent and entered an order to that effect. Section 39.409(2), Florida Statutes, provides: If the court finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in his…
-
Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. N.T. 670 So. 2d 1147 · DCA95-238 · District Court of Appeal 1996
· cited by 1 in all courts
…rights shall be based upon its finding that the following is proven by clear and convincing evidence: (a) The child was adjudicated dependent pursuant to s. 39.409; and (b)l. A disposition order was entered pursuant to s. 39.41; .... and (c)l. The parent was informed of his right to counsel in the dependency…
-
Courtney v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 667 So. 2d 504 · DCA95-0664 · District Court of Appeal 1996
· cited by 1 in all courts
…As for the parents’ second argument that the trial court erred by failing to set forth sufficient findings of fact in support of the dependency order, section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1991) requires only that the trial court “briefly” recite the factors upon which the finding of dependency is made: 39.409 Orders of…
-
Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Zeigler 587 So. 2d 602 · DCA90-1351 · District Court of Appeal 1991
· cited by 3 in all courts
…as it often does, a valid order adjudicating dependency and committing the child to the temporary legal custody of HRS for placement in foster care (sections 39.409 and 39.41(1)(d), Florida Statutes), then, of course, upon the failure of HRS to prove its petition for permanent termination, the trial court may forthwith…
-
In Interest of R.J. 586 So. 2d 496 · 1D91-227 · 1st DCA 1991
· cited by 8 in all courts
…shall be based upon its finding that the following is proven by clear and convincing evidence: (a) The child was adjudicated dependent pursuant to s. 39.409; and (b)1. A disposition order was entered pursuant to s. 39.41; 2. Any of the elements of s. 39.464 is met; or 3. The persons served with notice…
-
In re Petition of Florida Bar 589 So. 2d 818 · SC76669 · Florida Supreme Court 1991
· cited by 12 in all courts
…*886 (a) The child(ren) ____ was/were ____ adjudicated dependent pursuant to section 39.409, Florida Statutes. (b) A disposition order was entered pursuant to section 39.41, Florida Statutes. (c) The parents were informed of their right to…
-
Luszczyk v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 576 So. 2d 431 · 5D90-849 · 5th DCA 1991
· cited by 6 in all courts
…We reverse and remand for a new hearing upon determining that: I. No written findings of fact were included in the adjudication order as required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1989). II. Hearsay testimony of statements made by the child were admitted into evidence without a hearing to determine "that the time,…
-
In re D.H. 575 So. 2d 761 · 4D90-1887 · 4th DCA 1991
…v. Dep’t. of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 515 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); In the Interest of C.S., 503 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1989). Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.650 provides: All orders of the court shall be reduced to writing as soon after they are…
-
Williams v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 568 So. 2d 995 · 5D89-1822 · 5th DCA 1990
· cited by 12 in all courts
…for appellee. PETERSON, Judge. The natural father and mother of R.W. separately appeal an order of adjudication of dependency pursuant to section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1987). The two cases were consolidated for purposes of this appeal, and we reverse and remand both. On August 10, 1989, an "Order of the…
-
In re D.G. 568 So. 2d 1000 · DCA90-1466 · District Court of Appeal 1990
…Appellant argues on appeal that a finding of no dependency and a withholding- of adjudication of dependency are mutually exclusive. We agree. Section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1989), entitled “Orders of adjudication,” states as follows: (1) If the court finds that the child named in a petition is not dependent,…
-
In the Interest of C.B. v. State 526 So. 2d 1033 · DCA87-2037 · District Court of Appeal 1988
PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order finding the children dependent pursuant to § 39.409, Florida Statutes (1985). Appellants have raised three points on appeal, the first of which challenges the trial court’s failure to include specific findings…
-
In Interest of C.S. 503 So. 2d 417 · 1DBP-190 · 1st DCA 1987
· cited by 13 in all courts
…The state has acknowledged that the initial order adjudicating C.S. dependent is facially insufficient due to its failure to comply with the requirements of § 39.409(3), Fla. Stat. (1985). We agree that the order's insufficiency constitutes reversible error. However, the mother presents other issues which we believe merit…
-
In Interest of G.D.H. 498 So. 2d 676 · 1DBL-446 · 1st DCA 1986
· cited by 22 in all courts
…find that the trial court erred in its failure to state the facts supporting its finding of dependency in its order of adjudication as required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1985). The series of events culminating in the trial court's finding of dependency began in September 1985, when HRS received an…
-
O.M. v. Department of Children & Families 4D2023-3046 · 4th DCA 2024
Dependency adjudication reversed because DCF did not prove the father knew of the mother's drug use or that his own drug use harmed the child.
…2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). In dependency cases, DCF carries the burden to prove that a child is dependent by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023). A child may be declared dependent when the court finds that the child has been “abandoned, abused, or neglected by the child’s parent…
-
Department of Children & Families v. R.V. 5D23-1537 · 5th DCA 2023
Dismissal at the close of DCF's case reversed because evidence of the mother's drug abuse made a prima facie case of prospective abuse.
…hearing transcript, we agree with the appellants that DCF presented prima facie evidence of prospective abuse under sections 39.01(2), 39.01(34)(g)2., and 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2022). The uncontroverted evidence presented by DCF showed the following. This is the second time DCF has taken custody of this…
-
T.H. v. Department of Children & Families 1D19-0894 · 1st DCA 2020
Dependency adjudication affirmed because competent evidence linked the mother's untreated mental illness to neglect or imminent neglect of her medically fragile young child.
…of the evidence presented at an adjudicatory hearing, that she has been “abandoned, abused, or neglected by” one or both of her parents. §§ 39.01(15)(a), 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018). Even without such a finding, a child still can be dependent if the trial court finds that there is “substantial risk of imminent abuse,…
-
J.R.B. v. Department of Children & Families 1D20-1206 · 1st DCA 2020
The father's appeal of a dependency adjudication was dismissed as untimely because his rehearing motion did not toll the appeal deadline under the juvenile rules.
…v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 70 So. 3d 634, 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“A general magistrate cannot conduct an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes (2010).”)—but that is beside the point now. The father’s counsel at first objected to the magistrate’s presiding over an evidentiary…
-
M.S. v. Department of Children & Families 2D19-1989 · 2nd DCA 2019
Dependency reversed as to the father because DCF showed no link between his delusional episode and likely future harm to the children.
…the trial court's determination of dependency is not supported by the evidence. We agree. Due to the Department's failure of proof, we must reverse. See § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018) ("[A] preponderance of the evidence will be required to establish the state of dependency."); R.F. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 770…
-
D.L.C. v. Department of Children & Families 194 So. 3d 585 · 3D16-1109 · 3rd DCA 2016
On DCF's concession, the order of default on the motion for supplemental findings was reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
…on April 6, 2016, and remand to allow the Department to proceed with an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.347 and section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2015). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 2
-
Department of Children & Families v. T.S. 154 So. 3d 1223 · 4D14-3629 · 4th DCA 2015
· cited by 11 in all courts
Sua sponte dismissal of a dependency petition at arraignment reversed: DCF and the child got no notice or hearing, and best interests were ignored.
…be held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing. Id. An adjudicatory hearing is held “no later than [thirty] days after the arraignment.” § 39.507(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). Here, the arraignment was reset three times. The August 27th notice was for an arraignment. The notice did not provide for an…
-
E.R. v. Department of Children & Families 143 So. 3d 1131 · 4D14-885 · 4th DCA 2014
· cited by 5 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because homelessness and unemployment, and mistreatment of another child eighteen months earlier, did not show imminent risk of neglect or harm.
…if the child is at substantial risk of imminent harm or neglect “based on the conduct of one parent, both parents, or a legal custodian.” §§ 39.01(15)(f); 39.507(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). “Harm” to a child’s health or welfare occurs when the child suffers “physical, mental, or emotional injury.” § 39.01(32)(a)…
-
K.S. v. Department of Children & Families 136 So. 3d 1289 · 1D13-6161 · 1st DCA 2014
Dependency adjudication reversed because the court relied only on the father's consent, denying the mother's requested evidentiary hearing and giving no written findings.
…consent to the dependency of the children. Although the appellant requested an eviden-tiary hearing on dependency consistent with the requirements of section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes, the trial court did not conduct a hearing and issued a final order adjudicating the children dependent based only on the consent of the…
-
J.Z. v. Department of Children & Family Services 106 So. 3d 976 · CL4988483 · District Court of Appeal 2013
· cited by 3 in all courts
Evidence supported dependency, but the order was reversed for new findings because it parroted the petition; oral findings cannot cure a defective written order.
…required findings. When entering a dependency order, a circuit court is required by statute and rule to recite the facts that support the adjudication. § 39.507(6), Fla. Stat. (2011) (requiring the court to enter an order “briefly stating the facts upon which the [dependency] finding is made”); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.332(a)…
-
F.O. v. Department of Children & Families 94 So. 3d 709 · 5D12-892 · 5th DCA 2012
Order requiring the father to do case plan tasks affirmed without an abuse or neglect finding, because his conduct harmed the children's mental health.
…the entry of a consent pled by the children’s mother to the petition for dependency, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent. Pursuant to section 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2011), the court subsequently held an evidentiary hearing to determine if the father had *710 abused, abandoned, or neglected any of the…
-
Y.M. v. Home At Last Adoption Agency 93 So. 3d 1112 · 5D12-264 · 5th DCA 2012
· cited by 2 in all courts
…After denying termination, however, the court proceeded to adjudicate the child dependent and purported to make findings of fact pursuant to section 39.507, Florida Statutes. The court ordered the child to remain with her current placement in Massachusetts, provided Appellant with supervised visitation every…
-
H.B. v. Department of Children & Families 73 So. 3d 309 · 5D11-863 · 5th DCA 2011
Dependency adjudication reversed because the order merely incorporated the petition and lacked the factual findings required by section 39.507(6).
…on the petition for dependency and incorporated herein as if stated.” DCF properly concedes that this format is inadequate to meet the requirements of section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2010). We agree that the required findings of fact are inadequate and reverse on that basis. 2 REVERSED and REMANDED. …
-
W.S. v. Department of Children & Families 41 So. 3d 433 · 1D10-2618 · 1st DCA 2010
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because the trial court relied almost entirely on inadmissible hearsay from an investigator, as DCF and the guardian ad litem conceded.
…of dependency. The rules of evidence applicable in civil cases also apply in adjudicatory hear *434 ings under Chapter 39. § 39.507(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009). Thus, hearsay is inadmissible unless it is admitted pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.802, Fla. Stat.…
-
In re of R.K. 38 So. 3d 859 · 2D09-5522 · 2nd DCA 2010
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because it rested on inadmissible hearsay from the mother and children, and the admissible evidence was insufficient.
…but the Father contested the petition. The Department has the burden of proving a child's state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009); see M.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 940 So.2d 571, 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). "A court's final ruling of dependency is a…
-
B.T. v. Department of Children & Families 16 So. 3d 940 · 5D09-774 · 5th DCA 2009
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency adjudication affirmed, but the abandonment finding was reversed because DCF offered only the father's incarceration and nothing on his contact or support efforts.
…Both the mother and the biological father consented to the dependency and are not parties to this appeal. 2 . See § 39.507(7), Fla. Stat. (2008).
-
N.E.R. v. Department of Children & Family Services 11 So. 3d 1013 · 2D08-3563 · 2nd DCA 2009
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency finding with withheld adjudication, and the related treatment court order, reversed because DCF proved no abuse, neglect, imminent risk or harmful substance use.
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…
-
In re T.F. 8 So. 3d 474 · 2D08-1291 · 2nd DCA 2009
Reversed because the court changed the goal to adoption without a termination petition, rendering the mother's consent to dependency unknowing; new arraignment or hearing required.
…the Mother's knowing and voluntary consent, the trial court could adjudicate the child dependent only after an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to section 39.507. See § 39.506(2). Yet, an adjudicatory hearing was not held in this case. Thus, the trial court erred under the facts of this case in addressing a…
-
In re G.C. 6 So. 3d 643 · 2D08-1409 · 2nd DCA 2009
Termination reversed: case plan noncompliance did not show continuing harm, and DCF proved neither a threat to the children nor that services would be futile.
…finds grounds to re-adjudicate the children dependent under the more relaxed preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable in dependency hearings, see 39.507(1)(b), the court may continue the children's placement in foster care under an amended case plan, see 39.6013(4),.811(1)(a). Reversed and remanded for further…
-
J.C. v. Department of Children & Family Services 6 So. 3d 643 · 2D08-1409-2 · 2nd DCA 2009
· cited by 8 in all courts
Termination reversed: the parents largely complied with their case plans, and the department did not prove domestic violence or mental illness threatened the children.
…finds grounds to re-adjudicate the children dependent under the more relaxed preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable in dependency hearings, see 39.507(1)(b), the court may continue the children’s placement in foster care under an amended case plan, see 39.6013(4), .811(1)(a). Reversed and remanded for further…
-
J.R. v. Department of Children & Families 995 So. 2d 611 · 4D08-1031 · 4th DCA 2008
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because it rested on an uncorroborated hearsay hotline report, and the department conceded.
…home. A finding of dependency based upon an uncorroborated report and hearsay evidence is insufficient to support an adjudication of dependency. See § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Absent the hearsay testimony, there was no evidence of abandonment or neglect. The DCF agrees. We therefore reverse the adjudication of…
-
In re T.S. 979 So. 2d 1202 · 2D07-888 · 2nd DCA 2008
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dependency of three children reversed because the order's findings were nearly nonexistent and the record did not show inadequate supervision.
…dependency where the trial court failed to list adequate factual findings and the record did not support a finding of dependency)). DISCUSSION Section 39.507(6) provides that where "the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, . . . it shall incorporate that finding in an order of adjudication…
-
M.F. v. Department of Children & Families 975 So. 2d 622 · 4D07-3741 · 4th DCA 2008
· cited by 4 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed because DCF did not prove the father knew of the mother's drug use or that his own drug use endangered the children.
…Stat. (2007); § 39.01(43), Fla. Stat. (2007). The department has the burden of proving that the children are dependent by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007). *624 In the Order of Adjudication of Dependency of A.F., W.F., and Ma.F., the trial court made the following findings: 1. The father…
-
C.J. v. Department of Children & Families 968 So. 2d 121 · 4D07-1496 · 4th DCA 2007
· cited by 7 in all courts
Dependency adjudication reversed for a new hearing because the court admitted hearsay under a blanket ruling, though the remaining evidence could support neglect.
…that a trial court has broad evidentiary discretion to rely upon hearsay in numerous dependency proceedings, such as shelter hearings. Nevertheless, section 39.507(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that "[a]djudicatory hearing shall be conducted by the judge . . . applying the rules of evidence in use in civil cases." See…
-
Miami Herald Media Co. v. S.-P,D. 961 So. 2d 988 · 3D07-1111 · 3rd DCA 2007
…court “may close any [dependency] hearing to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing.” § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). However, such a determination must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Hembree v. Thomas, 906 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st…
-
T.P. v. Department of Children & Families 954 So. 2d 677 · 5D06-1562 · 5th DCA 2007
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency affirmed because the mother's excessive corporal discipline harmed the children; remanded only to clarify supervised versus unsupervised visitation.
…final order of disposition. In the order of adjudication, the trial court is required to set out the facts on which its finding of dependency is based. § 39.507(6), Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(g). This court has consistently *681 held that failure to comply with this directive will result in the order being…
-
Department of Children & Families v. D.B. 952 So. 2d 571 · 2D06-1295 · 2nd DCA 2007
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dismissal of the dependency petition reversed because DCF made a prima facie case; confused hearings require a new adjudicatory hearing.
…the dependency statute’s use of the term “dismissal” to reflect an adjudication on the merits of the petition may be a source of some confusion. See § 39.507(4), Fla. Stat. (2005). That is, a dependency court's dismissal of a petition might reflect the equivalent of a directed verdict, or it might reflect a…
-
S.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services 946 So. 2d 650 · 2D06-3136 · 2nd DCA 2007
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dependency reversed because the mother's relationship with a recently released felon did not cause the children's harm when he shot into her home.
…or neglected by the child’s parent” or that the child is “at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect by the parent.” §§ 39.01(14)(a), (f); 39.507(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). “ ‘Neglect’ occurs when a child is deprived of, or is allowed to be deprived of, necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment…
-
L.M. v. Department of Children & Families 946 So. 2d 42 · 4D06-1968 · 4th DCA 2006
· cited by 4 in all courts
Dependency affirmed on evidence of the mother's mental illness, drugs, and squalid home; trial without the incompetent mother was allowed to protect the children's permanency.
…v. Dep't of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Abuse and neglect must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). The following facts were established at the adjudicatory hearing. Dr. Sharon Brown, a medical doctor and psychiatrist, conducted a brief…
-
In re S.T. 940 So. 2d 571 · 2D06-964 · 2nd DCA 2006
· cited by 5 in all courts
Dependency of four children reversed: one confrontation leaving a bruise and slight swelling was not abuse, and no nexus showed prospective abuse of siblings.
…all four children were dependent. Discussion The Department is required to establish a child's state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(a). "A court's final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the…
-
In re C.R. 937 So. 2d 1257 · 2D05-1192 · 2nd DCA 2006
Dependency reversed for both parents: no proof the mother knew of risk from the stepfather's abuse, and no nexus showing prospective abuse of other children.
…prospective abuse or harm." Discussion The Department is required to establish a child's state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(a). "A court's final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the…
-
G.R. v. Department of Children & Family Services 937 So. 2d 1257 · 2D05-1192-2 · 2nd DCA 2006
· cited by 6 in all courts
Dependency reversed for both parents: no proof the mother knew of risk from the stepfather's abuse, and no nexus showing prospective abuse of other children.
…for prospective abuse or harm.” Discussion The Department is required to establish a child’s state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(a). “A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the…
-
C.C. v. Department of Children & Families 946 So. 2d 548 · 5D06-1272 · 5th DCA 2006
Dependency reversed because no evidence showed the father's domestic violence occurred in the child's presence; remanded for possible further evidence or a disposition hearing.
…in the presence of J.C. A child may be adjudicated dependent if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child has been abused. § 39.507(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). “Abuse” is defined as “any willful act or threatened act that results in any physical, mental, or sexual injury or harm that causes or is…
-
A.A. v. Department of Children & Families 908 So. 2d 585 · 5D04-3674 · 5th DCA 2005
· cited by 13 in all courts
Dependency reversed because corporal discipline by the brother caused no significant bruises or disfigurement, so evidence of excessive discipline was lacking.
…judge declared C.M. dependent. A child may be adjudicated dependent if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child has been abused. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004); P.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 865 So.2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); M.N. "Abuse" is defined as "any willful act or…
-
P.C. v. Department of Children & Families 898 So. 2d 195 · 2D04-1794 · 2nd DCA 2005
· cited by 3 in all courts
Dependency reversed because evidence of abandonment, one thrown container, and some cocaine use showed no resulting harm to the children.
…show that child suffered adverse consequences). We recognize that the burden of proof in a dependency matter is only by a preponderance of the evidence, § 39.507(1)(b), and that the mother may have an anger management problem and has admitted using illegal drugs. Nevertheless the evidence simply did not support a dependency…
-
P.M. v. Department of Children & Families 865 So. 2d 8 · 5D02-3569 · 5th DCA 2003
· cited by 1 in all courts
Foster placement and psychosexual evaluation affirmed, but remanded to clarify whether the child was found dependent as to the legal father given inconsistent rulings.
…child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected or is at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect only by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; M.N. v. Department of Children and Families, 826 So.2d 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). For the most part, P.M. admitted the facts which formed…
-
In re D.S. 849 So. 2d 411 · 2D02-3555 · 2nd DCA 2003
Termination as to the son reversed: denying a continuance to counsel who believed no termination was sought as to him was an abuse of discretion.
…574, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Although the dependency statute authorizes an adjudication of dependency based on a preponderance of the evidence, see § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002), rule 8.330(a) gives the trial judge the option to make his or her findings on the subject of dependency either by the preponderance of the…
-
Department of Children & Family Services v. Carter 851 So. 2d 197 · 5D02-2790 · 5th DCA 2003
· cited by 2 in all courts
Fee awards against DCF under s. 57.105 affirmed because dependency proceedings are civil; DCF conceded it did not prove abuse or abandonment.
…not one for termination of parental rights, and that the burden of proof in adjudicatory hearings in such cases is a preponderance of evidence. See § 39.507(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001); M. J.S. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 764 So.2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). More importantly, recent…
-
D.W.G. v. Department of Children & Families 833 So. 2d 238 · 4D01-701 · 4th DCA 2002
· cited by 7 in all courts
Dependency adjudication affirmed: delays were acquiesced in, child hearsay was properly found reliable, and domestic violence heard by the children and sexual abuse supported dependency.
…of 2000. After that, he moved to recuse two judges and his counsel sought to withdraw, further delaying the final hearing until January 2001. Although section 39.408(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that "[t]he adjudicatory hearing shall be held as soon as practicable after the petition for dependency is filed," it also…
-
B.A.L. v. Department of Children & Families 824 So. 2d 241 · 4D01-766 · 4th DCA 2002
· cited by 1 in all courts
Dependency of all children affirmed; the father's untreated sexual abuse of a stepdaughter and the mother's refusal to protect showed substantial risk to siblings.
…the children’s best interests. In order for a child to be adjudicated dependent, DCF must establish its allegations by the greater weight of the evidence. § 39.507(b), Fla. Stat. (2001); In the Interest of M.F., 770 So.2d 1189, 1192 (Fla.2000). A court’s final decision as to dependency “is a mixed question of law and…
-
D. v. Department of Children & Family Services 820 So. 2d 980 · 4D01-1644 · 4th DCA 2002
· cited by 7 in all courts
Dependency of all three children affirmed over a dissent: unexplained anal trauma to the infant in an intact home justified adjudicating both parents and siblings.
…present case, unlike B.J., is a dependency case, not a termination case, and the burden was preponderance of evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001). The purpose of a dependency proceeding is "the protection of the child and not the punishment of the person creating the condition of…
-
T.M. v. Department of Children & Families 813 So. 2d 200 · 5D01-2332 · 5th DCA 2002
· cited by 2 in all courts
Dependency order vacated and remanded because the court stated its abandonment finding as to the mother orally but not in the written order.
…to set forth findings of fact to support the adjudication. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand this matter for entry of a proper order. Section 39.507(6) of the Florida Statutes (1999) requires the trial court to set forth written findings of fact which support an adjudication of dependency. Rule 8.330(g) of…
-
G.V. v. Department of Children & Families 795 So. 2d 1043 · 3D00-1147 · 3rd DCA 2001
· cited by 6 in all courts
Dependency affirmed because the mother exposed the infant to the father's abuse; the court also erred in striking the pediatrician's expert testimony on cross-appeal.
…include the acts or omissions of the parent. *1048 § 39.01(2), (46), Fla. Stat. Abuse and neglect must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1998); see M.R. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 783 So.2d 277, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); M.F.G. v. Department of Children…
-
R.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services 792 So. 2d 1269 · 3D01-366 · 3rd DCA 2001
· cited by 3 in all courts
Dependency affirmed: the order stated sufficient facts, due process claims were unpreserved, and amending the petition to conform to the evidence was proper.
… Affirmed. We find no merit in the assertion that the trial court’s order did not state the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based. Section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2000), requires the court to enter an order briefly stating the facts upon which its finding is based. See Castellanos v. Department of…
-
G.C. v. Department of Children & Families 791 So. 2d 17 · 5D99-2227 · 5th DCA 2001
· cited by 21 in all courts
Dependency affirmed as to the father's sexual abuse but reversed on the mother's mental abuse; child testifying outside parents' presence and denied postponement upheld.
…8.255.(c) provide authority for the examination of children outside the presence of their parents. The statute has since been re-codified into section 39.507(2), Florida Statutes (2000). In compliance with Rule 8.255.(d)(2)(C)(iv), the court found there was a substantial likelihood of mental or emotional harm if H.C.…
-
L.B. v. Department of Children & Families 766 So. 2d 1259 · 5D99-3351 · 5th DCA 2000
· cited by 4 in all courts
Dependency order quashed because it lacked the required findings of fact; the judge may supplement the findings or hold a new hearing.
…to be dependent. She correctly contends that the order is deficient because it fails to set forth findings of fact upon which the order is based. Section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (1999) requires that in adjudicating a child dependent, a trial judge shall state in the order the facts upon which the finding is made.…
-
D.H. v. Department of Children & Families 769 So. 2d 424 · 4D00-203 · 4th DCA 2000
· cited by 33 in all courts
Dependency reversed: one kick to a half-sister and domestic violence the child never witnessed did not show substantial risk of imminent abuse to her.
…is the reluctance of victims to testify against their abusers, but courts require evidence, and in dependency proceedings the rules of evidence apply. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). It is still the Department's burden to prove its case.
-
F.R. v. Department of Children & Families 763 So. 2d 478 · 5D99-1278 · 5th DCA 2000
· cited by 3 in all courts
Dependency with adjudication withheld affirmed: proof of a sibling's fatal abuse supported dependency while the child stayed with the mother under supervision.
…noted that the court was cognizant of the Mother's ability to parent, as the court withheld adjudication and left D.R. in the care of the Mother. As Section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999) explains in pertinent part: If the court finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but finds that no action other…
-
M.W. v. Davis 756 So. 2d 90 · SC95443 · Florida Supreme Court 2000
· cited by 53 in all courts
Certified question answered no: neither Chapter 39 nor the constitution requires a Baker Act hearing before placing a dependent child in residential mental health treatment.
…is dependent-for example, abandoned, abused, or neglected, or is at substantial risk of imminent harm from abandonment, abuse, or neglect. See §§ 39.01(14); 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998). [25] Chapter 39 vests the dependency court with broad powers at the disposition hearing. These alternatives include requiring the…
-
B.B. v. Department of Children & Families 731 So. 2d 30 · 4D98-3711 · 4th DCA 1999
· cited by 5 in all courts
…allegations of the dependency petition, the court shall hold an adjudicatory hearing within 30 days after arraignment unless a continuance is granted. Section 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), requires that the adjudicatory hearing "shall be held as soon as practicable after the petition for dependency is filed ... but…
-
Petersen v. Department of Children & Families 732 So. 2d 374 · 5D98-2257 · 5th DCA 1999
· cited by 2 in all courts
…case with different standards of proof was prejudicial. In a dependency case, DCF is required to prove the elements by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.408(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). In a termination of parental rights case, however, it is required to prove the elements by clear and convincing evidence. § 39.467(1),…
-
A.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services 707 So. 2d 972 · 4D97-4231-3 · 4th DCA 1998
· cited by 1 in all courts
…moved for rehearing urging that our disposition creates a conflict. We agree. The issue is whether an order adjudicating a child dependent pursuant to section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1993), is a final appealable order, or whether it is non-final and can be reviewed on appeal when a subsequent disposition order is…
-
Collucci v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 664 So. 2d 1142 · 4D94-1295 · 4th DCA 1995
· cited by 4 in all courts
…requirements for termination of parental rights (T.P.R.) existed, we reverse. On August 13, 1992, D.C. was found to be a dependent child pursuant to section 39.409, Florida Statutes, and was placed in foster care with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Appellant had a history of chronic substance…
-
McKenzie v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 663 So. 2d 682 · 5D94-2261 · 5th DCA 1995
· cited by 9 in all courts
…to conclude that parent's oral consent to petition permitted entry of order of disposition without findings to support adjudication). In addition, section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1993), requires that a court incorporate in its order adjudicating dependency a brief statement of the facts upon which the finding is…
-
Denson v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 661 So. 2d 934 · 5D94-2735 · 5th DCA 1995
· cited by 18 in all courts
…for safekeeping. I would affirm. NOTES [1] The trial court is required to state findings of fact to support the determination of dependency. § 39.409, Fla. Stat. (1993); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.330(g). See also Ash v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 649 So.2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); In re…
-
L.H. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 647 So. 2d 311 · 5D94-0792 · 5th DCA 1994
· cited by 8 in all courts
…potential results to the family unit are not as severe as in termination of parental rights proceedings. Consequently, we have consistently enforced section 39.409(3)'s requirement of written findings of fact to support a finding of dependency. See Luszczyk v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 576 So.2d…
-
Simons v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 644 So. 2d 614 · DCA93-2771 · District Court of Appeal 1994
· cited by 1 in all courts
PER CURIAM. The Order of Adjudication of Dependency is vacated and the matter is remanded for entry of an order to include findings consistent with section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Luszczyk v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 576 So.2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Williams v. Dept. of Health and…
-
D.S. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 642 So. 2d 628 · 1D94-239 · 1st DCA 1994
· cited by 4 in all courts
…fact specifying the act or acts causing dependency, by whom committed, and facts upon which the findings are based." Fla. R.Juv.P. 8.325(c). Moreover, section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that where a trial court finds a child dependent "it shall incorporate that finding in an order of adjudication entered in…
-
Ware v. In the Interest of J.N.M. 632 So. 2d 716 · 2D92-02304 · 2nd DCA 1994
· cited by 2 in all courts
…that the trial court erred in failing to include in the order a statement of the facts upon which the finding of dependency was based. *717 Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1991), requires that an order adjudicating a child dependent “briefly stat[e] the facts upon which the finding is made.... ” See In the…
-
In re A.P. 624 So. 2d 340 · DCA92-1490 · District Court of Appeal 1993
· cited by 1 in all courts
…time, or in the orders of adjudication and of disposition subsequently entered, recite the “facts” upon which its conclusion was based, as required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1991). See In the Interest of C.S., 503 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA1987). Its failure to do so would require this court to resort to…
-
In Interest of D.F. 622 So. 2d 1102 · 1D92-3529 · 1st DCA 1993
· cited by 9 in all courts
…rights shall be based upon its finding that the following is proven by clear and convincing evidence: (a) The child was adjudicated dependent pursuant to s. 39.409; and (b)1. A disposition order was entered pursuant to s. 39.41; 2. Any of the elements of s. 39.464 is met; or 3. The persons served with notice…
-
C.L.K. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 622 So. 2d 29 · DCA92-00737 · District Court of Appeal 1993
…adjudication of dependency is reversed. FRANK, C.J., and LEHAN and A'LTENBERND, JJ., concur. . Had the trial court entered an order pursuant to section 39.409(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), withholding adjudication of dependency and placing the newborn’s home under HRS supervision, this might be a different case.
-
G.M. v. State 615 So. 2d 881 · DCA92-01495 · District Court of Appeal 1993
…of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). We find that HRS has proved by clear and convincing evidence the need for the adjudication of dependency. See § 39.409(3), Fla.Stat. (1991). We affirm. DANAHY, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
-
Jett v. State 605 So. 2d 926 · 5D90-257 · 5th DCA 1992
· cited by 5 in all courts
…of child abuse for the benefit of the abuser. [6] § 415.512, Fla. Stat. (1989). [7] §§ 382.703; 827.04; 827.05, Fla. Stat. (1989). [8] § 39.40-39.409; §§ 39.46-39.468, Fla. Stat. (1989). [9] Sexual battery clearly may be the basis for a child abuse charge, but all sexual battery prosecutions involving…
-
Fielder v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 596 So. 2d 520 · 5D91-1429 · 5th DCA 1992
· cited by 7 in all courts
…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…
-
Belflower v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 578 So. 2d 827 · 5D90-56 · 5th DCA 1991
· cited by 12 in all courts
… REVERSED and REMANDED. COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 39.467(2)(c)1 states: 2. The child was adjudicated dependent pursuant to 39.409; and * * * * * * (c)1. The parent was informed of his right to counsel in the dependency proceeding pursuant to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. …
-
Sigafoos v. Dept. of Hlt. 567 So. 2d 1053 · 5D89-2218 · 5th DCA 1990
…and further, that the trial court erred because its order fails to state the factual basis underlying its finding of dependency, as required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1987). The absence of such finding is reversible error. In the Interest of C.S., 503 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); In the Interest…
-
Sigafoos v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 567 So. 2d 1053 · DCA89-2218 · District Court of Appeal 1990
· cited by 4 in all courts
…and further, that the trial court erred because its order fails to state the factual basis underlying its finding of dependency, as required by section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1987). The absence of such finding is reversible error. In the Interest of C.S., 503 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); In the Interest…
-
In re K.S. 558 So. 2d 158 · DCA89-587 · District Court of Appeal 1990
· cited by 2 in all courts
…and ordered supervision and counseling for the family, but did not recite the specific factual basis for the original adjudication of dependency. Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes, provides that when a child is adjudicated dependent the court shall enter an order “briefly stating the facts upon which the finding [of…
-
Castellanos v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 545 So. 2d 455 · 3D87-454 · 3rd DCA 1989
· cited by 8 in all courts
…is based. The trial court adequately followed the statutory directive to "briefly stat[e] the facts upon which the finding [of dependency] is made... ." § 39.409(3), Fla. Stat. (1987). The fact that these findings may have largely tracked the factual allegations of the dependency petition cannot change this result, as the…
-
I.T. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 532 So. 2d 1085 · 3D87-2082 · 3rd DCA 1988
· cited by 20 in all courts
…that a trial court, in adjudicating a child dependent, "shall enter a written order specifying the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based." § 39.409(3), Fla. Stat. (1985); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.780(i). The trial court's failure in this case to state the facts upon which its finding of dependency was made, relying…
-
In Interest of D.M.S. 528 So. 2d 505 · 2D88-104 · 2nd DCA 1988
· cited by 11 in all courts
…in the dependency petition, the court declared the children dependent. The order of adjudication fails to contain findings of fact, as required by section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1987). Accordingly, we reverse the orders of adjudication and award of custody and remand this case to the circuit court for further…
-
Fitzpatrick v. State 515 So. 2d 319 · 3D86-942 · 3rd DCA 1987
· cited by 8 in all courts
…record, the report and recommendation of HRS. The trial court failed to state the facts supporting its finding of dependency as required by statute. Section 39.409(3), Florida Statutes (1985), provides: (3) If the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, but shall elect not to proceed under subsection…
-
In Interest of T.S. 511 So. 2d 435 · 2D86-2926 · 2nd DCA 1987
· cited by 6 in all courts
…defined by section 39.01(2), Florida Statutes (1985); second, that the order of adjudication of dependency on the grounds of abuse was in violation of section 39.409, subsections (2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1985), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.780(i), for failure to make findings of fact; and, third, that the…
-
Shane v. State 492 So. 2d 797 · DCA85-1929 · District Court of Appeal 1986
· cited by 2 in all courts
…case in light of our holding, we would point out that orders of adjudication of dependency must contain a statement of the facts upon which they are based. § 39.409(3), Fla.Stat. (1985).
-
Monteiro v. State 477 So. 2d 45 · DCA85-692 · District Court of Appeal 1985
· cited by 4 in all courts
…guaranteed to her under the United States and Florida constitutions. U.S. Const, amend XIV, § 1; art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.; § 39.408, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1984); § 39.409, Fla.Stat. (1983); A.T.P. v. State, 427 So.2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); A.Z. v. State, 383 So.2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also §…
-
Petition of Fla. Bar, Rules of Juv. Proc. 462 So. 2d 399 · SC65103 · Florida Supreme Court 1984
· cited by 8 in all courts
…health, safety and well-being of the child. Committee Note: Disposition under Rule 8.790 is authorized at present by either of two statutory methods, see 39.409 and 39.41. Rule 8.800. Post-Disposition Relief (a) Motion for Modification of Placement. A child who has been placed in his own home, in the home of a…
-
In re M.S. 455 So. 2d 557 · DCA84-1545 · District Court of Appeal 1984
· cited by 2 in all courts
…judge had found the child to be dependent, but had declined to “formalize” that finding. It appears that the court may have been thinking of section 39.409(2), Florida Statutes (1983), which permits a judge in a dependency hearing to withhold adjudication if the court finds that the child is dependent, but that no…
-
In Interest of C.B. 453 So. 2d 220 · 5D83-668 · 5th DCA 1984
· cited by 8 in all courts
… (e) To have persistently disobeyed the reasonable and lawful demands of his parents or other legal custodians and to be beyond their control. [3] Section 39.409, Florida Statutes (1983). [4] Nor do we read section 409.168(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), as mandating the state to have a performance plan as a…
-
In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 939 So. 2d 74 · SC06-140 · Florida Supreme Court 2006
· cited by 3 in all courts
…which would prohibit magistrates from conducting shelter hearings under section 39.402, Florida Statutes (2005), and adjudicatory hearings under sections 39.507 or 39.809, Florida Statutes (2005), we nevertheless conclude the proposed amendments are necessary and adopt them. [2] There is currently no meaningful…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2019 Fast-Track Report SC19-1818 · Florida Supreme Court 2020
…39.701(2)(d), and 39.701(4), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2019); ch. 2019-128, §§ 1-4, 6-7, 10, 12, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.001(3), 39.0136, 39.402(18), 39.507(7)(c), 39.522(1), 39.6011(2)(e), 39.6011(4), 39.621(10)(a), and 39.811(5), Fla. Stat., effective Oct. 1, 2019). …
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure SC21-627 · Florida Supreme Court 2021
…of this rule, a general magistrate shallmust not preside over a shelter hearing under section 39.402, Florida Statutes, an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes, or an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes, or an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.809, Florida Statutes. RULE…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure - 2017 Fast-Track Report 235 So. 3d 322 · SC17-2040 · Florida Supreme Court 2018
…(amending § 39.701(3)(a), Fla. Stat.; effective May 1, 2017); ch. 2017-151, §§ 3, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 21, 46, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.013(2), 39.402(8)(c), 39.507(7)(b), 39.521(1)(a), 39.522(2), (3), 39.6035(4), 39.801(3)(a), Fla. Stat.; effective July 1, 2017). -2- of hearing on a…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 115 So. 3d 286 · SC12-188 · Florida Supreme Court 2013
· cited by 2 in all courts
…consentís) to the adjudication of dependency of the child(ren) in conjunction with a withhold of adjudication, which the court accepts. 7. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court finds that the child(ren) named in the petition are dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 24 So. 3d 47 · SC08-1724 · Florida Supreme Court 2009
…Dependency, to govern orders finding dependency and create a procedure for the court when withholding adjudication in a dependency case, as allowed by section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2008). We adopt new rule 8.332 as proposed by the Committee, and we adopt the amendments to rule 8.330 with minor modifications. [5] …
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 725 So. 2d 296 · SC93-3 · Florida Supreme Court 1998
· cited by 1 in all courts
…entered -fbr-the following -reasons: — . ■■■.■■■■■■■■■:.. —(a) The child(ron-) — ..—was/were-.-.-.-.. adjudicated dependent — pursuant to -section 39.409, Florida Statutes. • — (b) A disposition order was entered-pursuant-to section 39.41, Florida -Statutes. —(c) The parents were informed of their…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure-2017 Fast-Track Report 235 So. 3d 322 · SC17-2040-2 · Florida Supreme Court 2018
…served person to appear at' the preliminary hearing on the motion constitutes consent to the motion. See ch. 2017-151, § 10, Laws of - Fla. (amending § 39.507(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016)). The amendment to subdivision (f)(3) (Preliminary Hearing on Motion) of rule 8.347 provides, “Failure of the person properly served with…
-
Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 827 So. 2d 219 · SC02-117 · Florida Supreme Court 2002
· cited by 1 in all courts
…has pointed out that the Florida Statutes require some of the proceedings cited in rule 8.255(i) to be conducted by “a judge without a jury.” See §§ 39.507 (dependency adjudicatory hearings), 39.809 (termination of parental rights adjudicatory hearings), Fla. Stat. (2001). Accordingly, although we do not approve…
-
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 608 So. 2d 478 · SC79591 · Florida Supreme Court 1992
· cited by 8 in all courts
…resolving all conflicts, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. The child(ren) .. .was/were... adjudicated dependent pursuant to section 39.409, Florida Statutes; 2. An order of disposition pursuant to section 39.41, Florida Statutes, was entered by this court; 3. The elements of section 39.464,…
No opinion cites this provision by number.
0 admin code rules cite § 39.507
DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it or name it as the law they implement.
No admin code rule cites § 39.507.
0 CFOPs cite § 39.507
How DCF carries it out. A page opens in the CFOP reader with the citation highlighted.
No CFOP cites § 39.507.
Shading shows how often opinions cite each provision: rarely sometimes often most. Click a provision to list the opinions citing it.
(1)(a) The adjudicatory hearing shall be held as soon as practicable after the petition for dependency is filed and in accordance with the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, but no later than 30 days after the arraignment.
(b) Adjudicatory hearings shall be conducted by the judge without a jury, applying the rules of evidence in use in civil cases and adjourning the hearings from time to time as necessary. In a hearing on a petition in which it is alleged that the child is dependent, a preponderance of evidence will be required to establish the state of dependency. Any evidence presented in the dependency hearing which was obtained as the result of an anonymous call must be independently corroborated. In no instance shall allegations made in an anonymous report of abuse, abandonment, or neglect be sufficient to support an adjudication of dependency in the absence of corroborating evidence.
(2) All hearings, except as provided in this section, shall be open to the public, and a person may not be excluded except on special order of the judge, who may close any hearing to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing. The parents or legal custodians shall be allowed to obtain discovery pursuant to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, provided such discovery does not violate the provisions of s. 39.202. Hearings involving more than one child may be held simultaneously when the children involved are related to each other or were involved in the same case. The child and the parents, caregivers, or legal custodians of the child may be examined separately and apart from each other.
(3) Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in this section prohibits the publication of the proceedings in a hearing.
(4) If the court finds at the adjudicatory hearing that the child named in a petition is not dependent, it shall enter an order so finding and dismissing the case.
(5) If the court finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child’s home is required, it may enter an order briefly stating the facts upon which its finding is based, but withholding an order of adjudication and placing the child’s home under the supervision of the department. If the court later finds that the parents of the child have not complied with the conditions of supervision imposed, the court may, after a hearing to establish the noncompliance, but without further evidence of the state of dependency, enter an order of adjudication and shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child as adjudicated. If the child is to remain in an out-of-home placement by order of the court, the court must adjudicate the child dependent.
(6) If the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, but chooses not to withhold adjudication or is prohibited from withholding adjudication, it shall incorporate that finding in an order of adjudication entered in the case, briefly stating the facts upon which the finding is made, and the court shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child as adjudicated.
(7)(a) For as long as a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered. This order establishes the legal status of the child for purposes of proceedings under this chapter and may be based on the conduct of one parent, both parents, or a legal custodian.
(b) However, the court must determine whether each parent or legal custodian identified in the case abused, abandoned, or neglected the child or engaged in conduct that placed the child at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect. If a second parent is served and brought into the proceeding after the adjudication and if an evidentiary hearing for the second parent is conducted, the court shall supplement the adjudicatory order, disposition order, and the case plan, as necessary. The petitioner is not required to prove actual harm or actual abuse by the second parent in order for the court to make supplemental findings regarding the conduct of the second parent. The court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing for the second parent in order to supplement the adjudicatory order, the disposition order, and the case plan if the requirements of s. 39.506(3) or (5) are satisfied. With the exception of proceedings pursuant to s. 39.811, the child’s dependency status may not be retried or readjudicated.
(c) If a court adjudicates a child dependent and the child is in out-of-home care, the court shall inquire of the parent or parents whether the parents have relatives who might be considered as a placement for the child. The parent or parents shall provide the court and all parties with identification and location information for such relatives. The court shall advise the parents in plain language that:
1. Parents must take action to comply with the case plan so permanency with the child may occur within the shortest period of time possible, but no later than 1 year after removal or adjudication of the child.
2. Parents must stay in contact with their attorney and their case manager and provide updated contact information if the parents’ phone number, address, or e-mail address changes.
3. Parents must notify the parties and the court of barriers to completing case plan tasks within a reasonable time after discovering such barriers.
4. If the parents fail to substantially comply with the case plan, their parental rights may be terminated and that the child’s out-of-home placement may become permanent.
(8) At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, if the child named in the petition is found dependent, the court shall schedule the disposition hearing within 30 days after the last day of the adjudicatory hearing. All parties shall be notified in writing at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing by the clerk of the court of the date, time, and location of the disposition hearing.
(9) An order of adjudication by a court that a child is dependent shall not be deemed a conviction, nor shall the child be deemed to have been found guilty or to be a criminal by reason of that adjudication, nor shall that adjudication operate to impose upon the child any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by or resulting from conviction or disqualify or prejudice the child in any civil service application or appointment.
(10) After an adjudication of dependency, or a finding of dependency in which adjudication is withheld, the court may order a person who has custody or is requesting custody of the child to submit to a mental health or substance abuse disorder assessment or evaluation. The order may be made only upon good cause shown and pursuant to notice and procedural requirements provided under the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The assessment or evaluation must be administered by an appropriate qualified professional, as defined in s. 39.01 or s. 397.311. The court may also require such person to participate in and comply with treatment and services identified as necessary, including, when appropriate and available, participation in and compliance with a mental health court program established under 1 chapter 394 or a treatment-based drug court program established under s. 397.334. In addition to supervision by the department, the court, including the mental health court program or treatment-based drug court program, may oversee the progress and compliance with treatment by a person who has custody or is requesting custody of the child. The court may impose appropriate available sanctions for noncompliance upon a person who has custody or is requesting custody of the child or make a finding of noncompliance for consideration in determining whether an alternative placement of the child is in the child’s best interests. Any order entered under this subsection may be made only upon good cause shown. This subsection does not authorize placement of a child with a person seeking custody, other than the parent or legal custodian, who requires mental health or substance abuse disorder treatment.
History. s. 20, ch. 78-414; s. 9, ch. 84-311; s. 7, ch. 87-133; s. 12, ch. 94-164; s. 231, ch. 95-147; s. 12, ch. 95-228; s. 68, ch. 98-403; s. 30, ch. 99-193; s. 11, ch. 2006-86; s. 4, ch. 2006-97; s. 12, ch. 2008-245; s. 2, ch. 2016-127; s. 83, ch. 2016-241; s. 10, ch. 2017-151; s. 4, ch. 2019-128.