C.S.C-D. v. Department of Children & Families

148 So. 3d 849, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17422, 2014 WL 5320137
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 20, 2014·No. Nos. 5D14-1985, 5D14-2402·Published

Opinion

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 trial court at a point when it could have been corrected.’ ” (quoting D.T. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))); R.B. v. Dep’t Children & Families, 997 So.2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)).

PALMER, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C.S.C-D. v. Department of Children & Families, 148 So. 3d 849, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17422, 2014 WL 5320137 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

148 So. 3d 849 (C.S.C-D. v. Department of Children & Families) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mathieu v. Mathieu
877 So. 2d 740 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
RB v. Department of Children and Families
997 So. 2d 1216 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
DT v. Florida Department of Children and Families
54 So. 3d 632 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
A.M. v. Department of Children & Families
118 So. 3d 998 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)