Background
J.Z., the mother of minor child M.L.H., appealed a ruling from the Circuit Court for Marion County in a dependency proceeding. Circuit Judge Stacy M. Youmans presided below.
The Fifth District’s brief per curiam opinion does not describe the underlying facts, identify the particular order challenged, or set out the mother’s appellate arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. The appellate court provided no independent factual or legal analysis.
In affirming, the court cited A.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 223 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Chief Judge Jay and Judges Edwards and MacIver concurred.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth District affirmed the dependency-court ruling.
- The per curiam opinion did not disclose the underlying facts, the precise issue on appeal, or the court’s reasoning.
- The court relied on A.M. v. Department of Children & Families as its sole cited authority.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves the circuit court’s ruling in place but offers little guidance beyond its citation to A.M.. Practitioners evaluating the decision’s significance must consult that authority and the underlying record rather than infer facts or a broader holding from the Fifth District’s summary affirmance.