R.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services

792 So. 2d 1269, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12486, 2001 WL 1007953
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 5, 2001·No. No. 3D01-366·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

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. See Castellanos v. Department of Health and Rehab. Servs., 545 So.2d 455, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The trial court here provided ample facts to support its finding of dependency as to both children. Additionally, any due process concerns were never raised before the trial court and are therefore barred. See Hill v. State, 549 So.2d 179, 182 (Fla.1989). Furthermore, the Department was properly allowed to amend its pleading to conform with the evidence.

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

R.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 792 So. 2d 1269, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12486, 2001 WL 1007953 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

792 So. 2d 1269 (R.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

H.C., the Mother v. Department of Children and Families
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
J.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families
270 So. 3d 523 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
GM v. Department of Children and Families
969 So. 2d 569 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)