green
Positive treatment
18.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
C.H. v. Dept. of Children and Families
Competent substantial evidence is tantamount to legally sufficient evidence.” In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla. 2000) (footnote omitted); J.C. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
L.C.R. v. Department of Children & Families
LOGUE, J. “[A] trial court’s determination of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact, which will be upheld on appeal if the trial court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence.” J.C. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
L.C.R. v. Dept. of Children and Families
LOGUE, J. “[A] trial court’s determination of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact, which will be upheld on appeal if the trial court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence.” J.C. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So. 2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B.J. v. Department of Children & Families
However, when [absent actual abuse, abandonment or neglect] these definitions are read in pari materia with the related language in section 39.01 (14)(f), a risk of imminent neglect seems to be-required to establish that a child is ‘dependent’ as a matter of law.”) (internal citations omitted); J.C. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
A.F. v. Department of Children & Family Services
“While all imminent abuse or neglect is prospective in nature, all prospective abuse is not imminent within the meaning of the statute.” J.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Florida Department of Children & Families v. Y.C.
(In re K.B.), 937 So.2d 709 , 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))); J.C. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ("The allegations contained in the dependency petition must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.”). 15 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
R.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services
Specifically, the court found: (1) the father “brought his son on occasion to his home”; (2) cocaine, cash, and an unsecured firearm were found in the father’s home; and, (3) the child was “present at the Father’s house on the day of the parents’ arrest, went to school within 25 feet of the Father’s home, and frequently visited his friend next door to his Father’s home on a regular basis.” Candidly recognizing it was expanding the reach of the case law relating to “neglect” under section 39.01(43), the trial court concluded: Pursuant to J.O. v. [Dep’t of Children & Fami…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jo v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
J.C. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ld v. Dcfs
J.C. v. Department of Children and Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Shepherd, J. dissenting) (citations and quotations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
L.D. v. Department of Children & Family Services
J.C. v. Department of Children and Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Shepherd, J. dissenting) (citations and quotations omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
LDJ v. Department of Children & Family Services
See J.C. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
cited
Cited "see"
L.D.J. v. Department of Children & Family Services
See J.C. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
cited
Cited "see"
CA v. Department of Children and Families
See J.C. v. Dep't of Children and Family Services, 937 So.2d 184, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
K.R.L. v. Department of Children & Family Services
Id. at 571 ; see also J.C. v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children); L.D. v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., 957 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Rhondel PARIS
v.
The STATE of Florida
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 3D06-1644.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug 23, 2006.
Rhondel Paris, in proper person., Charles J. Crist, Jr.r Attorney General, for appellee.
Lagoa, Ramirez, Rothenberg.
Published
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). This Court must reverse any order summarily denied unless the postconviction Record conclusively establishes that the appellant is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A).
Because the Record before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing, or for the attachment of Record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.