J.L., FATHER OF A.L., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
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.
A father appeals a supplemental dependency order finding that he "contributed to the dependency" of his child. The Florida appellate court reverses, holding that the proper legal standard requires proof that the father actually abused, abandoned, or neglected the child, not merely that he contributed to the child's dependent status.
The correct standard is whether the father actually abused, abandoned, or neglected the child, not whether he merely contributed to the child's dependent status. The trial court applied an improper standard by focusing on contribution rather than actual abuse, abandonment, or neglect.
[1] A court must determine whether a parent abused, abandoned, or neglected a child when adjudicating dependency, not merely if the child is at substantial risk of imminent a…
[2] When a child has already been found dependent as to one parent, a subsequent evidentiary hearing concerning another parent must focus on whether that parent actually abus…
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“the court must determine whether each parent or legal custodian identified in the case abused, abandoned, or neglected the child in a subsequent evidentiary hearing”
Establishes the proper statutory standard for supplemental dependency hearings under § 39.507(7)(b)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child had already been adjudicated dependent based on the mother's conduct. In a supplemental proceeding to determine the father's responsibility, t…
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 Child Dependency cases and more on FLexlaw
J.L., the father, appeals the supplemental order of dependency which found that “the father has contributed to the dependency of the child....”1 J.L. contends that this is an improper standard to determine dependency in the instant case. We agree.
*55The 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 custodian identified in the case abused, abandoned, or neglected the child in a subsequent evidentiary hearing. If the evidentiary hearing is conducted subsequent to the adjudication of the child, the court shall supplement the adjudicatory order ....”); see P.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 4 So.3d 719, 720-21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“It is significant to observe that while a child can be found dependent if he or she is ‘at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect,’ section 39.507(7)(b) only requires a trial judge, who has already adjudicated a child to be dependent, to determine whether each parent has actually abused, abandoned or neglected the child. Thus, in this case, the primary purpose of the evidentia-ry hearing should have been to determine if the father had actually abused or neglected R.S. and B.S. — not whether the children were at substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect.”) (footnote omitted). But see D.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 84 So.3d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (disagreeing with the holding in P.S. and certifying conflict with P.S.).
Accordingly, because the trial court applied the wrong standard, we reverse the supplemental order under review and remand this case to allow the trial court to reconsider the dependency issue as to J.L. under the proper standard.
REVERSED and REMANDED:
SAWAYA, TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- D.A. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 84 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- P.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 4 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)