T.V. v. Department of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.V. v. Department of Children & Family Services

843 So. 2d 1048, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7011, 2003 WL 21068416

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2003

DocketNo. 2D01-5260

StatusPublished

This text of 843 So. 2d 1048 (T.V. v. Department of Children & Family Services) 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

T.V. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 843 So. 2d 1048, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7011, 2003 WL 21068416 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

T.V., the mother, appeals an order adjudicating her child, K.V., dependent, but retaining the child in the parents’ care subject to state supervision. The father did not appeal the adjudication. The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) concedes that the case must be remanded for a new hearing because a complete transcript is not available for review due to a malfunction in the equipment that taped the proceedings. D.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families (In re R.G.), 835 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). That malfunction occurred shortly after the Department rested its case and the parents began their defense. T.V. argues that we are not required to remand for a new hearing because the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the Department’s case. We conclude, however, that the Department presented a prima facie case of dependency as to both parents. We therefore reverse the order adjudicating the child dependent as to the mother and remand for a new hearing on this issue.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

T.V., the mother, appeals an order adjudicating her child, K.V., dependent, but retaining the child in the parents’ care subject to state supervision. The father did not appeal the adjudication. The Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) concedes that the case must be remanded for a new hearing because a complete transcript is not available for review due to a malfunction in the equipment that taped the proceedings. D.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families (In re R.G.), 835 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). That malfunction occurred shortly after the Department rested its case and the parents began their defense. T.V. argues that we are not required to remand for a new hearing because the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for involuntary dismissal at the close of the Department’s case. We conclude, however, that the Department presented a prima facie case of dependency as to both parents. We therefore reverse the order adjudicating the child dependent as to the mother and remand for a new hearing on this issue.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

843 So. 2d 1048, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7011, 2003 WL 21068416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tv-v-department-of-children-family-services-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack