A.W., THE MOTHER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.,
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order adjudicating a child dependent, finding sufficient evidence that the mother failed to provide a safe home and comply with visitations. However, the court remanded to amend the order because one finding regarding substance misuse was not supported by evidence.
Yes, there was competent substantial evidence to support the adjudication of dependency based on the mother's failure to provide a safe home and comply with visitations. However, the finding of continued substance misuse was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] A dependency adjudication will be upheld on appeal if the trial court applied the correct law and the ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] An appellate court may not conduct a de novo review of the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when reviewing a dependency adjudication order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order of adjudication of dependency and determination that the mother, A.W., has exposed the children to a substantial risk of imminent neglect, see sections 39.01(15)(f) and 39.01(50), Florida Statutes (2016), by her failure to provide a proper and safe home environment for her children and failure to comply with her court-ordered visitations, we affirm.”
Establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the dependency adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court adjudicated a child dependent, finding the mother failed to provide a safe home environment and comply with court-ordered visitations.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order of adjudication of dependency and determination that the mother, A.W., has exposed the children to a substantial risk of imminent neglect, see sections 39.01(15)(f) and 39.01(50), Florida Statutes (2016), by her failure to provide a proper and safe home environment for her children and failure to comply with her court-ordered visitations, we affirm.1 See In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1194 (Fla. 2000) (holding that a dependency adjudication is to be based upon “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the petition” and will be upheld on appeal if the court applied the correct law and the ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence).
See also G.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So. 2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting that, in reviewing a dependency adjudication order, the appellate court may not conduct a de novo review of the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial court); J.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 263 So. 3d 60, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (holding: “It is not necessary to establish that the child saw or was aware of the domestic violence for a finding of neglect” (citing C.J.
v. Dep't of Children & Families, 968 So. 2d 121, 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding, in a dependency petition premised upon neglect (rather than abuse): “[T]he trial court did not have to determine whether C.J. saw or was aware of the violence because such a finding is not required in deciding whether a child is neglected”))). Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.F. and M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000)
- C.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 968 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- G.V. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & The Guardian Ad Litem Program, 795 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)