Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The state trial level courts of Florida play a critically important role in dependency hearings from the outset of a child’s case. After the Department files a petition for dependency, the court holds an adjudicatory hearing as soon as practicable. Fla. Stat. § 39.507. If the facts alleged in the dependency petition are proven in the adjudicatory hearing and the child is determined to be dependent, the state court conducts a disposition hearing. Id. §§ 39.507(7); 39.521(1)....

...7), to admit her statements to investigators. We recognize that one problem with domestic violence is the reluctance of victims to testify against their abusers, but courts require evidence, and in dependency proceedings the rules of evidence apply. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...In order to adjudicate a child dependent, the trial court must find by the preponderance of the evidence that the child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected or is at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect. See §§ 39.01(14), 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...However, M.J.S.'s parental rights were not terminated in this proceeding. Rather, this proceeding was limited to determining whether to adjudicate D.J.W. dependent. Therefore, the proper burden of proof was by the preponderance of the evidence. See § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...Appellant contends that the finding of dependency does not meet statutory requirements and that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of dependency. We affirm the finding of dependency and instruct the trial court, on remand, to revise its written order to adjudicate dependency pursuant to section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...family because the children's safety could not be assured; and 9) that the above allegations placed the children at significant risk of abuse, neglect, or threatened harm. A series of adjudicatory hearings *185 occurred from March 1999 to June 1999. § 39.507, Fla. Stat. (1999). Proof of abuse, neglect, or abandonment sufficient to demonstrate a state of dependency must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...The trial court withheld an adjudication of dependency but initially ordered out-of-home placement of the children, i.e., "placement outside of the home of the parents or a parent." § 39.01(49), Fla. Stat. (1999). Department concedes that this ruling cannot be reconciled with section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999); [4] *189 K.S., 760 So.2d at 1068 (trial court failed to comply with § 39.507(5) when it withheld adjudication of dependency but ordered child to remain under protective supervision in out-of-home placement). As it appears that in a subsequent hearing, the trial court ordered the children to live with their mother under Department's protective supervision, the issue of whether the ruling accords with section 39.507(5) could be moot....

...cumstances at the time of the adjudicatory hearing from which this appeal was taken." Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order finding dependency and REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS to the lower tribunal to enter an order adjudicating dependency in accordance with section 39.507(5)....

...EXCLUSION OF THE PARENTS FROM THE HEARING AT WHICH H.C. TESTIFIED Section 39.408(c)(2), Florida Statutes (1997) and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.255.(c) provide authority for the examination of children outside the presence of their parents. The statute has since been re-codified into section 39.507(2), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...r belief that his conduct was wrong. After hearing all of the evidence and testimony, the trial judge declared C.M. dependent. A child may be adjudicated dependent if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child has been abused. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...halfway house. Thus, we conclude that the trial court's finding of risk of imminent abuse or neglect is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Furthermore, we reject DCF's confession of error based on the Fifth District's holding in P.S. that section 39.507(7) of the Florida Statutes prohibits a supplemental adjudication of dependency based on prospective abuse or neglect....

...State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984)). Further, all parts of a statute should be read together to provide the whole legislative *1140 intent. Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992). Section 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that: (a) For as long as a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered....

...rm as a ground to determine that a child is dependent. Moreover, requiring a finding of actual harm as to the second parent hinders, rather than advances, the purpose behind the statutory prohibition against more than one dependency adjudication. Subsection 39.507(7) was added to Chapter 39 to remedy "unnecessary delays in placement and permancy" which were occurring in dependency cases involving separate adjudications as to each parent....

...antial risk of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and that harm is likely to occur if she is placed with her father. Further, we decline to accept the DCF's confession of error, as we disagree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal's interpretation of Section 39.507(7)....

...At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent and entered a written order stating that the father had "abandoned the children." Unfortunately, the order failed to set forth any factual findings as to abandonment. Section 39.507(6) of the Florida Statutes (1999) requires the trial court to set forth findings of fact which support the adjudication of dependency: 39.507 Adjudicatory hearings; orders of adjudication.— * * * (6) If the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, but chooses not to withhold adjudication or is prohibited from withholding adjudication, it shall incorporate that f...

...The court found in B.J. that termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and affirmed. The present case, unlike B.J., is a dependency case, not a termination case, and the burden was preponderance of evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...injury to the child and the failure to cooperate with the Department, the other children are at risk for prospective abuse or harm." Discussion The Department is required to establish a child's state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

....01(46), Fla. Stat. For the purpose of protective investigations, abuse and neglect of a child include the acts or omissions of the parent. *1048 § 39.01(2), (46), Fla. Stat. Abuse and neglect must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...mitting hearsay under the assumption that hearsay "is permitted in dependency matters." We recognize that a trial court has broad evidentiary discretion to rely upon hearsay in numerous dependency proceedings, such as shelter hearings. Nevertheless, section 39.507(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that "[a]djudicatory hearing shall be conducted by the judge ....

...Following the hearing, the trial court entered an Order on Dispositional Hearing in which it withheld an adjudication of dependency but ordered that M.M. remain under the Department's protective supervision and in his present placement with his maternal grandparents. Sections 39.507(5) & (6), Florida Statutes (1999), provide: 39.507 Adjudicatory hearings; orders of adjudication.— * * * (5) If the court finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child's home is required, it may enter an order briefly sta...

...upon which the finding is made, and the court shall thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child as adjudicated. *1070 [Emphasis supplied]. The mother correctly contends that the trial court's order fails to comply with section 39.507(5) because the court withheld adjudication and ordered the child to remain in an out-of-home placement. The Department likewise concedes that an out-of-home placement requires a dependency adjudication. The trial court's order is inconsistent with, or a hybrid of, sections 39.507(5) and (6)....

...Based upon the numerous procedural errors, the trial court's Order on Dispositional Hearing is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the court to revisit the issues of adjudicating M.M. dependent and placing him in an out-of-home placement, in accordance with rule 8.325 and sections 39.507(5) and (6)....

..." by the parent(s) or legal custodian(s). § 39.01(14)(a) & (f), Fla. Stat. (1999). "Proof of abuse, neglect, or abandonment sufficient to demonstrate a state of dependency must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence." E.M.A., 795 So.2d at 185; § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...5th DCA 1995); Richmond, 658 So.2d at 176. Department based its case primarily on the proposition that Appellant's mental illness places the child at risk of prospective "neglect." § 39.01(46), Fla. Stat. (1999). An adjudicatory hearing was held in mid-July 2000 in accordance with section 39.507, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...pp.1998), states that if a child has been detained by order of the court and the parent denies the allegations of the dependency petition, the court shall hold an adjudicatory hearing within 30 days after arraignment unless a continuance is granted. Section 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), requires that the adjudicatory hearing "shall be held as soon as practicable after the petition for dependency is filed ......

..., a minor child, was dependent and in need of care. The State alleged that the mother of the child suffers from Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome and intentionally caused her minor child to become so ill that she required numerous hospitalizations. Under section 39.507, Florida Statutes (1999), the adjudicatory hearing on a State's petition for dependency is required to be open to the public unless the judge orders the hearing closed upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing....

...Significantly, there is a statutory presumption of openness in dependency proceedings subject to a judicial decision to "close any hearing to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing." § 39.507(2), Fla....

...An appropriate balance must be struck among the many interests to be considered—the potential harm to the child, the rights of the parents, the right of public access and the promotion of fairness and public confidence in the judicial system. ANSTEAD, J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 39.507(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: (2) All hearings, except as provided in this section, shall be open to the public, and a person may not be excluded except on special order of the judge, who may close any hearing to the public up...

...Sawyer, Jr., Orlando, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. L.B., mother of L.B. and L.P.G. appeals from an order declaring her children to be dependent. She correctly contends that the order is deficient because it fails to set forth findings of fact upon which the order is based. Section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (1999) requires that in adjudicating a child dependent, a trial judge shall state in the order the facts upon which the finding is made....

...Although we are sympathetic to the arguments raised by the commenters to the proposed amendment to subdivision (h) of rule 8.257, which would prohibit magistrates from conducting shelter hearings under section 39.402, Florida Statutes (2005), and adjudicatory hearings under sections 39.507 or 39.809, Florida Statutes (2005), we nevertheless conclude the proposed amendments are necessary and adopt them....

...(g) [No Change] (h) Prohibition on Magistrate Presiding over Certain Hearings. Notwithstanding the provisions of this rule, a general magistrate shall not preside over a shelter hearing under section 39.402, Florida Statutes, an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes, or an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.809, Florida Statutes....

...clear and convincing evidence. ..... 6. That the parties have filed a mediation agreement in which the parent(s) consent(s) to the adjudication of dependency of the child(ren) in conjunction with a withhold of adjudication, which the court accepts. 7. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court finds that the child(ren) named in the petition are dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child(ren)'s home is required. THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court hereby withholds adjudication of dependency of the minor child(ren)....

...d Family Services (Department) must follow in order to legally place a child into a protective shelter. A shelter hearing refers to the hearing which must take place, in all but very strict circumstances, before a child can be placed into a shelter. Section 39.507 governs adjudicatory hearings conducted after the Department has filed a petition for dependency....

...risk of imminent neglect based upon the father's own drug use. See § 39.01(14)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (2007); § 39.01(43), Fla. Stat. (2007). The department has the burden of proving that the children are dependent by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...eir father. The trial court determined that the father had, in fact, sexually abused his sons' step-sister and that some of the incidents of sexual abuse occurred while the sons' step-sister was residing in the same home as the two boys. Pursuant to section 39.507(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), it was improper for the trial court to enter a "second" order of adjudication of dependency....

...er adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered. This order establishes the legal status of the child for purposes of proceedings under this chapter and may be based on the conduct of one parent, both parents, or a legal custodian. § 39.507(7)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). Although section 39.507(7)(a) prohibited the entry of a second order of adjudication of dependency, section 39.507(7)(b) required the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the father abused, abandoned, or neglected R.S....

...If the evidentiary hearing is conducted subsequent to the adjudication of the child, the court shall supplement the adjudicatory order, disposition order, and the case plan, as necessary. With the exception of proceedings pursuant to section 39.811, [2] the child's dependency status may not be retried or readjudicated. § 39.507(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). 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," [3] section 39.507(7)(b) only requires a trial judge, *721 who has already adjudicated a child to be dependent, to determine whether each parent has actually abused, abandoned or neglected the child....

...d R.S. or B.S. Although much of the parties' briefs in the case were addressed to the issue of whether R.S. and B.S. were "at substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect," we find it unnecessary to address this issue based on the plain language of section 39.507(7)(b)....

...e children. The court found that the Department had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all four children were dependent. Discussion The Department is required to establish a child's state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...of an anonymous abuse report stating that the children had been abandoned at the great-grandmother's home. A finding of dependency based upon an uncorroborated report and hearsay evidence is insufficient to support an adjudication of dependency. See § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...4th DCA 2003) (concluding that father's alcohol and drug addictions did not support dependency adjudication when evidence failed to show that child suffered adverse consequences). We recognize that the burden of proof in a dependency matter is only by a preponderance of the evidence, § 39.507(1)(b), and that the mother may have an anger management problem and has admitted using illegal drugs....

...§ 39.01(14)(a), (f), Fla.Stat. (1999). Although the trial court found D.R. dependent, it should be noted that the court was cognizant of the Mother's ability to parent, as the court withheld adjudication and left D.R. in the care of the Mother. As Section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999) explains in pertinent part: If the court finds that the child named in the petition is dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child's home is required, it may enter an order briefl...

...n most civil cases. We note, in passing, that the present case is based on a petition for dependency, not one for termination of parental rights, and that the burden of proof in adjudicatory hearings in such cases is a preponderance of evidence. See § 39.507(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001); M....

...For the purpose of protective investigations, abuse and neglect of a child include the acts or omissions of the parent. § 39.01(2),(43), Fla. Stat. (2006); G.V. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 1043, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Abuse and neglect must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...had been subjected to an improper and humiliating form of punishment. Based on these findings, the court found a probability of prospective abuse against C.S., necessitating an adjudication of dependency. The rules of evidence applicable in civil cases also apply in adjudicatory hearings *434 under Chapter 39. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...is in order. See id. (citing In re G.D.H., 498 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (reversing an adjudication of dependency where the trial court failed to list adequate factual findings and the record did not support a finding of dependency)). DISCUSSION Section 39.507(6) provides that where "the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, ....

...(2004), and retain findings as to prospective- neglect, see § 39.01(14)(f). However, to ensure a complete analysis, our discussion will address both existing neglect and prospective neglect. Discussion The Department is required to establish a child’s state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b); Fla....

...45). Other than the conclusory statement that “[t]he Mother has no stable place of residence,” the trial court’s written order contains no specific findings of fact that would support an adjudication of dependency based on prospective neglect. Section 39.507(6) requires that “[i]f the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, ......

...On December 13, 2010, the same day the magistrate made his report and recommendation, the circuit judge adopted the recommended order adjudicating E.B. dependent in the order under review. A general magistrate cannot conduct an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes (2010). Section 39.507, which governs hearings adjudicating children dependent, provides that such hearings "shall be conducted by the judge without a jury, applying the rules of evidence in use in civil cases." § 39.507(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2010). Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.257(h) prohibits a general magistrate from presiding over an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507: "Notwithstanding the provisions of this rule, a general magistrate shall not preside over a shelter hearing under section 39.402, Florida Statutes, an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes, or an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.809, Florida Statutes." See also In re Amendments to the Fla....

...At the February 13, 2001 review, the parents moved unsuccessfully to dismiss the proceedings. Trial was set for April 12, 2001. At the outset of the April 12, 2001 adjudicatory hearing the parents renewed their motion to dismiss, asserting that the language contained in sections 39.506(1) and 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes, constitutes a speedy trial rule applicable to dependency actions and that the failure to commence trial within 30 days of the arraignment divested the court of jurisdiction over the dependency action....

...However, if the parent or legal custodian denies any of the allegations of the petition, the court shall hold an adjudicatory hearing within 30 days after the date of the arraignment hearing unless a continuance is granted pursuant to this chapter. Section 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes states: The adjudicatory hearing shall be held as soon as practicable after the petition for dependency is filed and in accordance with the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, but no later than 30 days after the arraignment. This court has recently rejected the contention that the time periods contained in sections 39.506(1) and 39.507(1)(a) are jurisdictional speedy trial periods....

...was twelve years old, C.K. was ten, and R.K., Jr., was two. The Mother consented to the adjudication of dependency, but the Father contested the petition. The Department has the burden of proving a child's state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...R. Juv. P. 8.330 committee notes (1991 amend.); R.A. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 724 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Although the dependency statute authorizes an adjudication of dependency based on a preponderance of the evidence, see § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...appeals the trial court's order adjudicating his daughter dependent. We affirm as to all issues but write to address his contention that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the state failed to hold a dependency trial within thirty days as provided in section 39.507(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...The father argued that the supreme court's opinion in State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 825-26 (Fla.2002), holding that the thirty-day time frame for hearing involuntary commitment proceedings under the Jimmy Ryce Act was mandatory, should apply to the time limitation in section 39.507(1)(a)....

...It also found that the time periods in Chapter 39 were directory because, unlike the Jimmy Ryce Act, dependency cases do not involve serious deprivations of children's liberty interests. The court proceeded with the trial and adjudicated the child dependent as to D.D., the father. The father maintains the time limitation in section 39.507(1)(a) should be interpreted as a mandatory speedy trial requirement....

...ment. In M.T. v. Department of Children & Families, 816 So.2d 227, 229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the fifth district rejected a similar argument. Like here, at the parents' arraignment, the trial court set trial beyond the thirty-day time limitation under 39.507(1)(a), and the adjudicatory hearing was not conducted until six months after their arraignment....

...Bar to Amend Fla. Rules of Juv. P., 462 So.2d 399 (Fla.1984). Currently, the only juvenile rule governing speedy trial is Rule 8.090, which rule applies only to delinquency proceedings. See M.T., 816 So.2d at 229. Thus, the court held the time limitation in section 39.507(1)(a) was not a jurisdictional speedy trial period....

...e without any mechanism to ensure the defendant's civil commitment was resolved prior to the expiration of the prison sentence as intended by the Legislature. See id. Relying upon this rationale, the father maintains the thirty-day time period under section 39.507(1)(a) should be interpreted as a mandatory time limitation where Chapter 39 implicates the "longstanding and fundamental liberty interest of parents in determining the care and upbringing of their children free from the heavy hand of government paternalism." Padgett v....

...Ferrell, 739 So.2d 650, 651-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Despite this precedent, the father maintains the state is not exercising its right to protect the child in the least restrictive manner when it fails to conduct the adjudicatory hearing within the thirty-day time limitation under section 39.507(1)(a), impeding his fundamental right to parent....

...[1] These provisions reinforce the conclusion that the time limitation is not mandatory for the protection of the parent's rights but directory for the protection of the child. Finally, the trial court determined that dismissal for failure to try the dependency action within the thirty days provided in section 39.507(1)(a) was not in the best interest of the child....

SILBERMAN, Judge. N.E.R. appeals an order entitled “Order Withholding Adjudication and Disposition as to the Mother, [N.E.R.] (pursuant to § 39.507(5) Florida Statutes).” In the order, the trial court found the Mother’s two children, M.C....

...the petition.” § 39.506(1)–(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Depending on the parents’ response, a disposition hearing will be held within fifteen or thirty days of the arraignment hearing. Id. An adjudicatory hearing is held “no later than [thirty] days after the arraignment.” § 39.507(1)(a), Fla....

...an tasks. Nevertheless, we must reverse the dependency order because the court failed to make the required findings. When entering a dependency order, a circuit court is required by statute and rule to recite the facts that support the adjudication. § 39.507(6), Fla....

...earing on remand. Reversed and remanded. STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . In this respect, the dependency statute’s use of the term “dismissal” to reflect an adjudication on the merits of the petition may be a source of some confusion. See § 39.507(4), Fla....

...the mother's failure to appear while postponing the adjudicatory hearing on the petition's allegations concerning father. There was no separate petition or motion for supplemental adjudication filed.... This acknowledgement reflects the framework of section 39.507(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides: For as long as a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered....

...udicating the children dependent due to a substantial risk of prospective abuse or neglect. We found the entry of a second order of dependency improper and noted the trial court's improper focus on the issue of prospective abuse or neglect. Instead, section 39.507(7)(b) required the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the father had actually abused, abandoned, or neglected the children: 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....

...used or neglected R.S. and B.S.—not whether the children were at substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect. Id. at 720-21 (footnote omitted). Assuming, in the present case, we were to treat the hearing conducted as that which was required under 39.507(7)(b), the trial court found Father did not abuse or neglect the children....

...in fact dependent as to P.M. To adjudicate a child dependent, the trial court must find the child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected or is at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect only by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...is one of three minor children in the dependency action below. The mother for all three children was also a party, as well as the biological father of the two remaining children. Both the mother and the biological father consented to the dependency and are not parties to this appeal. [2] See § 39.507(7), Fla....

...ontributed 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. *55 The proper standard is whether J.L. had “abused, abandoned, or neglected the child ....”§ 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...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....

...pendency issue as to J.L. under the proper standard. REVERSED and REMANDED: SAWAYA, TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. . Because the child had already been declared dependent as to the mother, the child’s status was not at issue in J.L.’s case. See § 39.507(7)(a), Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. We find no merit in the assertion that the trial court’s order did not state the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based. Section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2000), requires the court to enter an order briefly stating the facts upon which its finding is based....

...ry to the child and the failure to cooperate with the Department, the other children are at risk for prospective abuse or harm.” Discussion The Department is required to establish a child’s state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(l)(b), Fla....

...Appellant contends that the finding of dependency does not meet statutory requirements and that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of dependency. We affirm the finding of dependency and instruct the trial court, on remand, to revise its written order to adjudicate dependency pursuant to section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...ily because the children’s safety could not be assured; and 9) that the above allegations placed the children at significant risk of abuse, neglect, or threatened harm. A series of adjudicatory hear *185 ings occurred from March 1999 to June 1999. § 39.507, Fla. Stat. (1999). Proof of abuse, neglect, or abandonment sufficient to demonstrate a state of dependency must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...The trial court withheld an adjudication of dependency but initially ordered out-of-home placement of the children, ie., “placement outside of the home of the parents or a parent.” § 39.01(49), Fla. Stat. (1999). Department concedes that this ruling cannot be reconciled with section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (1999); 4 *189 K.S., 760 So.2d at 1068 (trial court failed to comply with § 39.507(5) when it withheld adjudication of dependency but ordered child to remain under protective supervision in out-of-home placement). As it appears that in a subsequent hearing, the trial court ordered the children to live with their mother under Department’s protective supervision, the issue of whether the ruling accords with section 39.507(5) could be moot....

...mstances at the time of the adjudicatory hearing from which this appeal was taken.” Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order finding dependency and REMAND WITH INSTRUCTIONS to the lower tribunal to enter an order adjudicating dependency in accordance with section 39.507(5)....

...(h) Prohibition on Magistrate Presiding over Certain Hearings. Notwithstanding the provisions of this rule, a general magistrate shallmust not preside over a shelter hearing under section 39.402, Florida Statutes, an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes, or an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.507, Florida Statutes, or an adjudicatory hearing under section 39.809, Florida Statutes. RULE 8.260....

...In the order of dependency, under the heading, "Findings of Fact", the trial court wrote: "The factual basis for the adjudication of dependency is as follows: as outlined on the petition for dependency and incorporated herein as if stated." DCF properly concedes that this format is inadequate to meet the requirements of section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2010)....

...by the child designed to remedy behavior that may be causing stress to the parent. For instance, there is no provision in chapter 61 authorizing the trial court to order an addicted parent into drug counseling, which a dependency judge can do under section 39.507(10), Florida Statutes, just as there is no provision in chapter 61 to order a parent into any other sort of therapy or counseling to address other behaviors....

...s, has never been interpreted by any appellate court to provide the legal basis for ordering a parent or child into therapy, nor does any other provision of chapter 61 give such authority. Chapter 61 also contains no language similar to sections 39.507(10) or 39.6011, Florida Statutes, authorizing the trial judge to fashion a reunification plan for parents and their children, or to order the parents into long-term, intensive therapy or counseling to effect a successful parenting or timesharing plan....

...w enforcement regarding their observation." On appeal, the Father argues that the trial court's determination of dependency is not supported by the evidence. We agree. Due to the Department's failure of proof, we must reverse. See § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...The committee proposed amending rule 8.330, Adjudicatory Hearings, to clarify dismissals in dependency proceedings and proposed new rule 8.332, Order Finding Dependency, to govern orders finding dependency and create a procedure for the court when withholding adjudication in a dependency case, as allowed by section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...5th DCA 2022), but we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. See D.R. v. J.R., 203 So. 3d 952, 954 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). B. A trial court may adjudicate a child dependent based on the conduct of one parent, see § 39.507(7)(a), Fla....

...8.315(a), but must also determine whether, at the time the child was adjudicated dependent, the other parent had “abused, abandoned, or neglected the child or engaged in conduct that placed the child at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect.” 4 § 39.507(7)(b), Fla. Stat.2 The adjudication of J.F. and P.K. as dependent, based on their mother’s consent, is not challenged or otherwise at issue in this appeal. Rather, their father challenges the trial court’s supplemental order, entered pursuant to section 39.507(7)(b), determining that the father contributed to the children’s dependency status based on the ultimate finding that “[t]he children would be at risk of abuse in the father’s home.” The trial court’s finding of “r...

...l court was required to find either that the father had “abused, abandoned, or neglected” J.F. and P.K. or that the father “engaged in conduct that placed the child[ren] at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect.” See § 39.507(7)(b), Fla. Stat. “Risk of abuse,” as found by the trial court, is not equivalent to substantial 2 Section 39.507(7)(b) is concerned with only two of the seven alternative categories composing the statutory definition of a dependent child. Compare § 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...court’s adjudication of dependency as to the father. C. Applying the correct legal standard—whether the father “engaged in conduct that placed [J.F. and P.K.] at substantial risk of imminent abuse” under section 39.507(7)(b)—there also was not sufficient evidence in the record for the trial court to have adjudicated the children dependent as to the father....

...�s home. As for the father’s own conduct, it is true that DCF did not need to prove he actually abused his other child in order to prove he contributed to the dependency of 11 J.F. and P.K. See § 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...arent in order for the court to make supplemental findings regarding the conduct of the second parent.”). But DCF did have to prove that the father engaged in some conduct “that placed [J.F. and P.K.] at substantial risk of imminent abuse.” § 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...The record evidence 12 in this case, however, is not legally sufficient to support a determination of abuse as defined in chapter 39, or a finding that the father “engaged in conduct placing [J.F. and P.K.] at substantial risk of imminent abuse” as required by section 39.507(7)(b). Accordingly, we reverse the supplemental order adjudicating that the father contributed to the dependency of J.F....

...r and convincing evidence. .6. That the parties have filed a mediation agreement in which the parent(s) consentís) to the adjudication of dependency of the child(ren) in conjunction with a withhold of adjudication, which the court accepts. 7. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court finds that the child(ren) named in the petition are dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child(ren)’s home is required. THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court hereby withholds adjudication of dependency of the minor child(ren)....

...& Fams., 958 So. 2d 554, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting R.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 881 So. 2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). In dependency cases, DCF carries the burden to prove that a child is dependent by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...At the arraignment hearing on the Department of Children and Families’ petition for dependency of the appellant’s children, the father entered a written consent to the dependency of the children. Although the appellant requested an eviden-tiary hearing on dependency consistent with the requirements of section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes, the trial court did not conduct a hearing and issued a final order adjudicating the children dependent based only on the consent of the father without providing written findings....

...Analysis The mother argues that because the children were never adjudicated dependent, the lower court was not allowed to exercise jurisdiction over her children after termination of supervision without following the statutory requirements governing new dependency actions. We agree. We start by noting that section 39.507, Florida Statutes, does not give the court "full authority" over a child that is not adjudicated dependent. See § 39.507(5) & (6), Fla....

...jurisdiction," this provision, by the statute's express terms, only applies to children "adjudicated by a court to be dependent." See § 39.521(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). The court's treatment of children who are not adjudicated dependent is governed by section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes. That statute allows the court to withhold adjudication of dependency, leave the children in their home, and order in-home supervision by the department. This was the action originally taken in this case. However, section 39.507(5) only authorizes an extended exercise of jurisdiction if "the court later finds that the parents of the child have not complied with the conditions of supervision imposed", in which case the court can then "enter an order of adjudication" *1161 and "thereafter have full authority under this chapter to provide for the child as adjudicated." Id. Clearly, the court cannot proceed further under section 39.507(5) after it enters an order successfully terminating supervision because the section only contemplates further action based upon a violation of "the conditions of supervision." At the time the trial court took the actions challenged he...

...y house. Thus, we conclude that the trial court’s finding of risk of imminent abuse or neglect is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Furthermore, we reject DCF’s confession of error based on the Fifth District’s holding in P.S. that section 39.507(7) of the Florida Statutes prohibits a supplemental adjudication of dependency based on prospective abuse or neglect....

...State, 721 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.1998) (quoting Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984)). Further, all parts of a statute should be read together to provide the whole legislative *1140 intent. Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla.1992). Section 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that: (a) For as long as a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered....

...rm as a ground to determine that a child is dependent. Moreover, requiring a finding of actual harm as to the second parent hinders, rather than advances, the purpose behind the statutory prohibition against more than one dependency adjudication. Subsection 39.507(7) was added to Chapter 39 to remedy “unnecessary delays in placement and permancy” which were occurring in dependency cases involving separate adjudications as to each parent....

...al risk of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and that harm is likely to occur if she is placed with her father. Further, we decline to accept the DCF’s confession of error, as we disagree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Section 39.507(7)....

...(mother) appeals the final order entered by the trial court adjudicating four of her children dependent. We agree with the mother that the trial court erred in failing to set forth findings of fact to support the adjudication. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand this matter for entry of a proper order. Section 39.507(6) of the Florida Statutes (1999) requires the trial court to set forth written findings of fact which support an adjudication of dependency....

court erred in withholding adjudication under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes (2020), because the mother

welfare of the child is best served by so doing.” § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). However, such a determination

...was twelve years old, C.K. was ten, and R.K., Jr., was two. The Mother consented to the adjudication of dependency, but the Father contested the petition. The Department has the burden of proving a child’s state of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence. § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...Juv. P. 8.330 committee notes (1991 amend.); R.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 724 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Although the dependency statute authorizes an adjudication of dependency based on a preponderance of the evidence, see § 39.507(l)(b), Fla....

...In order to adjudicate a child dependent, the trial court must find by the preponderance of the evidence that the child has been abused, abandoned, or neglected or .is at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect. See §§ 39.01(14), 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...However, M.J.S.'s parental rights were not terminated in this proceeding. Rather, this proceeding was limited to determining whether to adjudicate D.J.W. dependent. Therefore, the proper burden of proof was by the preponderance of the evidence. See § 39.507(1)(b), Fla....

...Thus, a home study for Father was not completed. Both K.H. and S.F. consented to dependency and the Children were adjudicated dependent. However, Father did not consent to dependency. As a result, DCF sought a supplemental adjudication of dependency as to Father under section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes. After Father’s attorney withdrew from the case, Father proceeded pro se....

...outdated law when it required that DCF prove “actual harm” or “actual abuse” by Father to prove the allegations in the Petitions for Dependency. We agree. After a petition for dependency is filed, an adjudicatory hearing shall be held as soon as practicable. § 39.507(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022). “For as long as a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered.” § 39.507(7)(a), Fla. Stat. That “order establishes the legal status of the child for purposes of proceedings under this chapter and may be based on the conduct of one parent, both parents, or a legal custodian.” § 39.507(7)(a), Fla. Stat. When a court has determined that a child is dependent as to one parent and a second parent has been served and brought into the proceeding, section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2022), applies....

...plan, as necessary. The petitioner is not required to prove actual harm or actual abuse by the second parent in order for the court to make supplemental findings regarding the conduct of the second parent. § 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...(emphasis added). In the December 5th Order, the trial court stated that DCF must show that Father “actually abused or neglected the children.” As support for this statement, the trial court cited to J.L. v. Department of Children & Families, 87 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). However, in 2017, section 39.507(7)(b) was amended to specifically state that the “petitioner is not required to prove actual harm or actual abuse by the second parent in order for the court to make supplemental findings regarding the conduct of the second parent.” Ch. 2017-151, § 10, Laws of Fla.; see In Interest of E.T., 268 So. 3d 821, 825–26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (discussing 2017 amendment to section 39.507(7)(b) and explaining that DCF is not required to prove actual harm or actual abuse in order for the court to make supplemental findings regarding the conduct of the second parent). 11  It is clear from the plain language of section 39.507(7)(b) that, after 2017, DCF is not required to prove actual harm or actual abuse in order to obtain a supplemental adjudication of dependency against a second parent. Thus, the trial court erred in relying on J.L....

...to terminate Appellant’s parental rights. We affirm this portion of the order without further discussion. After denying termination, however, the court proceeded to adjudicate the child dependent and purported to make findings of fact pursuant to section 39.507, Florida Statutes....

...repetition of the father’s conduct and the mother’s refusal to take protective steps in the children’s best interests. In order for a child to be adjudicated dependent, DCF must establish its allegations by the greater weight of the evidence. § 39.507(b), Fla....

...Concession of Error, we reverse the Order of Default on the Motion for Supplemental Findings rendered on April 6, 2016, and remand to allow the Department to proceed with an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.347 and section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2015). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 2 

...Based upon appellees Department of Children and Families, et al.,’s Concession of Error, we reverse the Order of Default on the Motion for Supplemental Findings rendered on April 6, 2016, and remand to allow the Department to proceed with an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.347 and section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2015)....

...(amending §§ 39.402(8)(h), 39.407(3)(d)1., 39.407(6)(g)2., 39.6251(2)(e), 39.6251(6), 39.701(2)(d), and 39.701(4), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2019); ch. 2019-128, §§ 1-4, 6-7, 10, 12, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.001(3), 39.0136, 39.402(18), 39.507(7)(c), 39.522(1), 39.6011(2)(e), 39.6011(4), 39.621(10)(a), and 39.811(5), Fla....

...cy) is amended to add new subdivisions (d)(1)-(4) to include three new advisements that the court must tell the parent if the court adjudicates a child dependent and the child is in out-of-home care. See ch. 2019-128, § 4, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.507(7)(c), Fla....

...preponderance of the evidence ...... clear and convincing evidence. ..... 6. That the parties have filed a mediation agreement in which the parent(s) consent(s) to the adjudication of dependency of the child(ren) in conjunction with a withhold of adjudication, which the court accepts. 7. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court finds that the child(ren) named in the petition are dependent, but finds that no action other than supervision in the child(ren)’s home is required. - 53 -  THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Under section 39.507(5), Florida Statutes, the Court hereby withholds adjudication of dependency of the minor child(ren)....

required and would affirm the order on appeal. Section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (1999) requires the trial

...Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the Department or the guardian timely appealed the adjudication or disposition orders. The Department argues that the trial court had the authority to vacate the original order of dependency, but that it erred in doing so because section 39.507(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), does not allow the dependent state of a child to be retried. Additionally, it contends that section 39.507(7)(a) only permits the trial court to enter a single order regarding the dependency of the child....

...However, the trial court is allowed to make supplemental findings regarding the later-arriving parent. The guardian agrees with the Department that the trial court had the authority to vacate the order of dependency but that it erred in doing so because section 39.507(7) does not allow the dependent state of a child to be retried....

...The guardian contends, however, that the trial court correctly ruled that the child's dependency cannot be simultaneously withheld and entered because there can only be one order addressing the child's dependency status. The rules of adjudicatory hearings are found in section 39.507. Section 39.507(5) states that if a court finds a child dependent, "but finds no action other than supervision in the child's home is required, it may enter an order briefly stating the facts upon which its finding is based, but withholding an order o...

...The Department stated it would notify the prospective father to give him the opportunity to acknowledge paternity. When the father later came forth and acknowledged paternity of the child, the trial court vacated the order in which it withheld adjudication and found the child dependent. However, section 39.507(7)(a) provides that while a court maintains jurisdiction over a dependency case, "only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered....

...father, however, punishes the mother for the father's current incarceration and inability to comply with a case plan. Additionally, the trial court's Withhold of Adjudication Order was not void so as to justify vacating it. We believe, however, that section 39.507(7)(b) does provide a remedy to the situation created in this case. Section 39.507(7)(b) states that a court must conduct a subsequent evidentiary hearing to determine whether each of the parents abused or neglected the child....

...ement the adjudicatory order, disposition order, and the case plan, as necessary." Thus, the trial court should have allowed the Withhold of Adjudication Order to stand and then held a subsequent evidentiary hearing to determine the father's status. Section 39.507(7)(b) allows a supplementary decision to be entered, which in this case could have addressed the father's status and have found the child dependent as to the father. Because the trial court could have maintained the Withhold of Adjudication Order as to the mother and have conducted a supplementary hearing as to the father, pursuant to section 39.507(7)(b), we reverse the trial court's decision with directions to reinstate the Withhold of Adjudication Order and to enter a supplemental order regarding the father....

...ing interpretations, I would grant the motion and clarify our opinion to leave no room for debate as to our holdings. Because my colleagues have not agreed to do so, I submit the following to clearly state my position regarding the interpretation of section 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 39.507(7)(a) provides that "only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered....

...This order establishes the legal status of the child for purposes of proceedings under this chapter and may be based on the conduct of one parent, both parents, or a legal custodian." This language reflects that an order of dependency relates to the status of the child. Thus, because section 39.507(7)(a) provides that "only one order adjudicating each child in the case dependent shall be entered," and the conduct of either parent may result in an adjudication of dependency, when the conduct of either or both parents warrants a fi...

...Based on the mother's conduct, the trial court found the child dependent but withheld adjudication. When the father was subsequently located and his conduct required an adjudication of dependency, the trial court was faced with two seemingly conflicting provisions set forth in section 39.507(7)(b): (1) whereas the status of the child may not be retried; (2) the trial court is permitted to make supplemental findings....

...ased on the later determination of paternity and the conduct of the father. Also, although the parties have not sought certification to the Florida Supreme Court, I would certify the following as questions of great public importance: (1) Pursuant to section 39.507, may the trial court make two separate findings regarding the status of a child—one adjudicating the child dependent and one withholding an adjudication of dependency? (2) Where, as here, a parent's whereabouts is unknown, and an orde...

separate disposition hearing was required under section 39.507(8) if it found that the Father had abused

...otion to supplement and in a summons in order for the court to find that the failure of a properly served person to appear at' the preliminary hearing on the motion constitutes consent to the motion. See ch. 2017-151, § 10, Laws of - Fla. (amending § 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...at must be included in a notice 2. See ch. 2017-8, §§ 3, 8, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.701(3)(a), Fla. Stat.; effective May 1, 2017); ch. 2017-151, §§ 3, 7, 10, 12-13, 17, 21, 46, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 39.013(2), 39.402(8)(c), 39.507(7)(b), 39.521(1)(a), 39.522(2), (3), 39.6035(4), 39.801(3)(a), Fla....

...of hearing on a motion to supplement and in a summons in order for the court to find that the failure of a properly served person to appear at the preliminary hearing on the motion constitutes consent to the motion. See ch. 2017-151, § 10, Laws of Fla. (amending § 39.507(7)(b), Fla....

...The "findings of fact" set forth in the order of adjudication were taken verbatim from the allegations in the dependency petition. Unfortunately, many of *613 those allegations were never proven at trial, and others were specifically rejected by the trial court in its oral ruling. Section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2005), generally requires the trial court to set forth the facts upon which a finding of dependency is made....

...ndency where there was conflicting evidence presented, particularly as to the issues of neglect and abandonment. Therefore, we vacate the adjudication order and remand this case to the trial court to enter an order of adjudication in compliance with section 39.507(6) and based on the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing....

question, are presumptively open to the public. § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). Court records required

...We reverse because there was no competent, substantial evidence in the record on appeal that C.C.’s acts of domestic violence occurred in the presence of J.C. A child may be adjudicated dependent if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the child has been abused. § 39.507(l)(b), Fla....

...The father was thereafter ordered to perform-certain tasks pursuant to an amended case plan. We affirm. After the entry of a consent pled by the children’s mother to the petition for dependency, the trial court adjudicated the children dependent. Pursuant to section 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2011), the court subsequently held an evidentiary hearing to determine if the father had *710 abused, abandoned, or neglected any of the children....

...Mother’s consent to the dependency adjudication was not knowing and voluntary. At that point, without the Mother’s knowing and voluntary consent, the trial court could adjudicate the child dependent only after an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to section 39.507....

...the Mother's consent to the dependency adjudication was not knowing and voluntary. At that point, without the Mother's knowing and voluntary consent, the trial court could adjudicate the child dependent only after an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to section 39.507....

...While the evidence in the record completely supports the finding of dependency, we conclude that the trial court’s order did not set forth with specificity the facts upon which the court’s finding of dependency was based, as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.332(a) and section 39.507(6), Florida Statutes (2011)....

...Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s Revised Adjudication Order as to the minor child with respect to A.F. and remand the case for the trial court to enter an order of adjudication that includes findings of fact based on the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing and is in compliance with rule 8.332(a), section 39.507(6)....

...is in order. See id. (citing In re G.D.H., 498 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (reversing an adjudication of dependency where the trial court failed to list adequate factual findings and the record did not support a finding of dependency)). DISCUSSION Section 39.507(6) provides that where “the court finds that the child named in a petition is dependent, ......

...). Thus, T.P. is permitted to challenge the initial order of adjudication in this appeal from the final order of disposition. In the order of adjudication, the trial court is required to set out the facts on which its finding of dependency is based. § 39.507(6), Fla....