A.M., MOTHER OF J.S. AND N.M., MINOR CHILDREN, 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 affirmed the trial court's order denying reunification because the appellant failed to file a motion for reunification or preserve any statutory deficiencies through proper procedural mechanisms.
A parent cannot appeal a denial of reunification when no motion for reunification was actually filed or preserved in the record.
[1] A parent seeking reunification must file a motion supported by statutory demonstration that the child's safety and well-being are not endangered, and must preserve any cl…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“demonstrat[ion] that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child[ren are] not endangered by the modification”
Statutory requirement under § 39.621(9), Fla. Stat. for supporting a reunification motion
A.M.'s two children were adjudicated dependent in 2008 and reached permanency in 2012. A.M. appealed a December 2012 judicial review hearing order.…
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 Motion For Reunification cases and more on FLexlaw
A.M. appeals a judicial review hearing order involving her two children who were adjudicated dependent in 2008, and reached permanency in 2012. Her appeal claims among other things that the court’s order incorrectly denied a motion for reunification and failed to make adequate statutory findings. There is no record indication, however, that A.M. actually moved for reunification. Neither a motion for reunification, nor an order deciding a motion for reunification appears in the record. Furthermore, the record of the December 2012 hearing — which gave rise to the order that A.M. appeals here — does *999not indicate that A.M. supported a motion for reunification with the statutorily required “demonstrat[ion] that the safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health of the child[ren are] not endangered by the modification.” § 39.621(9), Fla. Stat. Finally, if statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court’s order, Appellant needed to preserve these issues “by a motion for rehearing or ... [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected.” D.T. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
We find no merit in Appellant’s other arguments and therefore affirm the trial court.
LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.S.C-D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 148 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See A.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 118 So. 3d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court’s order, [*850] Appellant needed to preserve these issues ‘by a motion for rehearing or ... [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the tria…
-
O. K. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…er Releasing Supervision and Relinquishing Jurisdiction. Because the Father did not preserve the issues raised in his briefs by filing a motion for rehearing, we affirm the trial court's April 18, 2022, order. See A.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 118 So. 3d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court's order, [a]ppellant needed to preserve these issues 'by a motion for rehearing or . . . [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial c…
Authorities Cited
- Monfiston v. State, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- D.T. Mother of N.N. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)