Heck v. In the Interest of M.H.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heck v. In the Interest of M.H.

627 So. 2d 1325, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12287, 1993 WL 513947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1710

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 627 So. 2d 1325 (Heck v. In the Interest of M.H.) 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.

Bluebook

Heck v. In the Interest of M.H., 627 So. 2d 1325, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12287, 1993 WL 513947 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough examination of the record, we find that there is substantial competent evidence to establish that the fa[1326]*1326ther, Richard Heck, Jr., abused M.H. and R.H., as that term is defined in section 89.-01(2), Florida Statutes (1991). See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Paquin v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 561 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Moreover, the father cannot now complain about the introduction of the child hearsay statements in the videotapes where the father entered into a pretrial stipulation in which he agreed to allow the children’s hearsay statements contained in the videotapes to be admitted during the trial. See Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971) (An appropriate stipulation is binding upon parties and court.); City Laundry & Linen Supply v. Coster, 465 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (Parties are bound by pretrial stipulation absent good cause for modification.). Accordingly, the trial court’s order adjudicating M.H. and R.H. dependent as to their father is hereby affirmed. See Hardy v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Castellanos v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 545 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); In the Interest of C.G., 506 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

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

PER CURIAM.

After a thorough examination of the record, we find that there is substantial competent evidence to establish that the fa[1326]*1326ther, Richard Heck, Jr., abused M.H. and R.H., as that term is defined in section 89.-01(2), Florida Statutes (1991). See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); Paquin v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 561 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Moreover, the father cannot now complain about the introduction of the child hearsay statements in the videotapes where the father entered into a pretrial stipulation in which he agreed to allow the children’s hearsay statements contained in the videotapes to be admitted during the trial. See Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So.2d 1 (Fla.1971) (An appropriate stipulation is binding upon parties and court.); City Laundry & Linen Supply v. Coster, 465 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (Parties are bound by pretrial stipulation absent good cause for modification.). Accordingly, the trial court’s order adjudicating M.H. and R.H. dependent as to their father is hereby affirmed. See Hardy v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Castellanos v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 545 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); In the Interest of C.G., 506 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 So. 2d 1325, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12287, 1993 WL 513947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heck-v-in-the-interest-of-mh-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack