E.H., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
This text of E.H., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (E.H., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 27, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1402 Lower Tribunal No. 14-15885 ________________
E.H., the Mother, Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angelica D. Zayas, Judge.
Cooke Law P.A., and Stewart M. Cooke, for appellant.
Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children & Families; Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Kimberly J. Lopater (Tampa); and Thomasina F. Moore (Tallahassee), for appellee Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.
PER CURIAM. E.H., the Mother, appeals from an order adjudicating her infant child,
C.J. (“Child”), dependent. We affirm the order adjudicating the Child
dependent.
The trial court adjudicated the Child dependent based on several
statutory grounds. Any of these grounds would warrant an adjudication of
dependency.
In this appeal, the Mother has challenged only two of the statutory
grounds—(1) section 39.01(35)(g)2., which pertains to “harm” “to a child’s
health or welfare” based on “[e]vidence of extensive, abusive, and chronic
use of a controlled substance or alcohol by a parent to the extent that the
parent’s ability to provide supervision and care for the child has been or is
likely to be severely compromised”; and (2) section 39.01(35)(i), which
pertains to “harm” “to a child’s health or welfare” based on “[e]ngag[ing] in
violent behavior that demonstrates a wanton disregard for the presence of a
child and could reasonably result in serious injury to the child.” As to section
39.01(35)(g)2., the Mother’s argument lacks merit and does not warrant any
further discussion.
As to section 39.01(35)(i), the Mother’s argument has merit. This
ground was based on the Child’s Father hitting the Mother on several
occasions. The record reflects that the Mother and Father do not reside in
2 the same household, but the Father has hit the Mother several times. On
one of those occasions, the Mother was holding the Child. There is no
indication in the record that Mother hit the Father. As such, we conclude that
the record before this Court does not indicate that she engaged in violent
behavior; rather, she was the victim of violent behavior. Accordingly, the
dependency of the Child as to the Mother was not properly based on section
39.01(35)(i), Florida Statutes (2020), and we reverse that portion of the order
under review. However, as there are other statutory grounds that
independently and clearly warrant the trial court’s finding that the Child is
dependent as to the Mother, we affirm the adjudication of dependency.
Finally, we note that the order adjudicating the Child dependent
contains a scrivener’s error. The order cites to section 39.01(35)(t) of the
Florida Statutes, which does not exist. On remand, the trial court is ordered
to enter an amended order adjudicating the Child dependent that does not
reference section 39.01(35)(t).
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part; and remanded for further
proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
E.H., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eh-the-mother-v-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2021.