EG v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
EG v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 830 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.”
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Michelle C. Earl v. Roger A. Earl (fladistctapp, 2015-07-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Michelle C. Earl v. Roger A. Earl
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the written findings must be amended to conform with the oral pronouncement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So.3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So.2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So.2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)); Y.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 830 So.2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); N.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 785 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Cf. Brewer v. Brewer, 3 So. 3d 432, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 614 So. 2d 649, 650-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gallardo v. Gallardo, 593 So. 2d 522, 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)); Y.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 830 So. 2d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing D.F., Jr. v. State, 650 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); N.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 785 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)).
cited Cited "see" BC v. Department of Children and Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Y.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 830 So.2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
discussed Cited "see" PM v. Dept. of Children and Families
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Y.G. v. Department of Children and Families, 830 So.2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (remand was necessary to correct dependency order so that it conformed with oral pronouncement that basis for dependency was prospective neglect, not abuse as stated in the order).
E.G., Father of J.G. and K.B., Children, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
5D02-1164.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov 8, 2002.
830 So. 2d 212
Harris.
Published

Ryan Thomas Truskoski, of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Charles D. Peters, Orlando, for Appellee, Department of Children & Family Services.

HARRIS, J.

The court determined that two children were dependent because "if the children were to remain in the custody of [the mother or father], the children's physical, mental, and emotional health would be in danger of being significantly impaired thereby placing the children at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment and/or neglect." This finding was based on competent evidence of an ongoing cocaine dependence on the part of both parents.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.