DT v. Florida Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DT v. Florida Department of Children and Families

54 So. 3d 632, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2445

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 24, 2011·No. 1D10-5313·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. As to the statutory findings, we are compelled to affirm, because the appellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected. See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this juvenile dependency case, the appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying her motion for reunification with her minor child, N.N. She argues that the case must be remanded, because the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 39.621(10), Florida Statutes and because there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s conclusion that reunification would be detrimental to the child. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling. As to the statutory findings, we are compelled to affirm, because the appellant failed to preserve this issue by a motion for rehearing or to otherwise bring the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected. See Simmons v. Simmons, 979 So.2d 1063, 1064-65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Owens v. Owens, 973 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.

DT v. Florida Department of Children and Families, 54 So. 3d 632, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2445 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

54 So. 3d 632 (DT v. Florida Department of Children and Families) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related