S.W. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families

Full title: S.W., the Mother, and A.H., the Father, Appellants, v. STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 17, 2021

No. 4D20-2032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2021)

Opinion

No. 4D20-2032 No. 4D20-2037

02-17-2021

S.W., the Mother, and A.H., the Father, Appellants, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Antony P. Ryan, Director, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant S.W., the Mother. Crystal J. Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm, P.A., Stuart, for appellant A.H., the Father. Andrew Feigenbaum, Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. Valley, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432019000125DPAXMX. Antony P. Ryan, Director, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant S.W., the Mother. Crystal J. Marsh of the Marsh Law Firm, P.A., Stuart, for appellant A.H., the Father. Andrew Feigenbaum, Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families. Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. Valley, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian Ad Litem Program. PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, the mother and the father challenge the adjudication of dependency as to their child, raising numerous arguments. We find that all but one argument lacks merit. We agree with the mother that the trial court erred in finding that the child's lethargy at birth was caused by the mother's drug use. There was no evidence supporting this finding.

We affirm the adjudication of dependency but remand for the trial court to strike that finding from the order.

Affirmed in part, and remanded with instructions. CIKLIN, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.