R.S., FATHER OF A.R.S., 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.
The court held that the trial court erred by adjudicating a child dependent without holding an adjudicatory hearing.
A child was sheltered after the father's arrest for drug offenses and incarceration. DCF filed a dependency petition alleging chronic substance abuse …
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 Permanent Guardianship cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, R.S. [“R.S.”], appeals the order of adjudication, finding his child, A.R.S., dependent and entering a case plan with a goal of permanent guardianship. A.R.S. was sheltered after R.S. was arrested for multiple drug offenses, his third in two years. The mother is deceased. The Department of Children and Families [“DCF”] subsequently filed a dependency petition that alleged that R.S. engaged in chronic substance abuse and that he was currently incarcerated. R.S. denied the dependency allegations.
Without taking any evidence, the trial court entered an adjudication that DCF *982had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was dependent. The court then set a disposition hearing, to which R.S. objected in the absence of an adjudicatory hearing. A case plan with a goal of permanent guardianship was nevertheless entered by the lower court.
The Guardian ad Litem and DCF both properly concede that the court erred in failing to hold an adjudicatory hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for that purpose.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and TORPY, JJ., concur.