A.T.N. v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services
70 So. 3d 634
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- A.T.N. appeals a circuit court order adopting a general magistrate's recommendation to adjudicate her child E.B. dependent.
- The general magistrate presided over the adjudicatory hearing, which violated Rule 8.257(h).
- DCFS conceded the error and that the only evidence at the hearing was hearsay.
- The parties had entered a Stipulation for Plan of Treatment allowing adjudication upon material violation of the stipulation after six months.
- Before the six-month period ended, DCFS moved to adjudicate dependency, arguing noncompliance with the plan.
- The circuit judge adopted the magistrate's recommendation on the same day the magistrate issued his report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of magistrate to adjudicate dependency | A.T.N. argues magistrate lacked authority under §39.507 and Rule 8.257(h). | DCFS contends magistrate could hear the matter under existing referral. | Magistrate lacked authority; reversal required. |
| Referral and consent requirements | There was no proper order of referral consent. | Record suggested consent through the process. | Violation of 8.257(b)(1); remand required. |
| Use of hearsay as sole evidence | No witness or evidence presented; magistrate relied on hearsay. | DCFS burden to prove dependency by preponderance; evidence insufficient. | DCFS did not meet burden; adjudication improper. |
| Remedy for improper proceedings | Error warrants reversal and remand for proper proceedings. | Reversed and remanded for fresh adjudicatory proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Polk Cnty. v. Sofka, 702 So.2d 1243 (Fla.1997) (requires proper jurisdiction and authority to enter judgment; lack of jurisdiction defeats merits)
- In re Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 939 So.2d 74 (Fla.2006) (concerning magistrate limitations and child rights during adjudicatory hearings)
- E.S. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 984 So.2d 647 (Fla.1st DCA 2008) (dependency burden on DCFS; proof by preponderance; review for abuse of discretion)
- C.C. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 556 So.2d 416 (Fla.1st DCA 1989) (premise that dependency determinations require proper evidentiary support)
- J.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 947 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2d DCA 2007) (dependency adjudications reviewed for abuse of discretion)