IN THE INTEREST OF N.L., A CHILD. V.L., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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 Department and Guardian ad Litem failed to present competent substantial evidence that the child was at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect by the father.
The father appealed an order adjudicating his child dependent. The trial court's order was based entirely on the father's failure to substantially com…
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 Case Plan Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
V.L., the father, appeals an order adjudicating his child N.L. dependent as to him. We reverse.
The Department of Children and Families and the Guardian ad Litem Program failed to present competent substantial evidence that N.L. was “at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect” by the father. See § 39.01(15)(f), Fla. Stat. (2015); see also § 39.01(2) (defining “abuse” as any willful act that results in any harm that causes or is likely to cause the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired); § 39.01(30)(g) (defining “harm” among other things as, exposing a child to chronic use of drugs “when the child is demonstrably adversely affected by such usage”).
Notably, the trial court’s order adjudicating N.L. dependent as to the father was based entirely on his failure to substantially comply with a case plan for his older children who were earlier adjudicated dependent. Neither the Department nor the Guardian Ad Litem Program has cited any case, and we-have not found one, to support the trial court’s sole reasoning that the father’s failure to comply with a case plan for his other children put N.L. at substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record establishing facts to show that N.L. was at substantial risk of imminent harm by the father’s failure to comply with the case plan for the two older children.
Accordingly, we reverse the order adjudicating N.L. dependent as to V.L. and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY, LaROSE, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.