Case Name: L.W. and P.G., Appellants, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-10-16
Citations: 829 So. 2d 938
Docket Number: Nos. 3D01-847, 3D00-3521
Parties: L.W. and P.G., Appellants, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 829
Pages: 938–940

Head Matter:
L.W. and P.G., Appellants, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.
Nos. 3D01-847, 3D00-3521.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 16, 2002.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 2002.
Herseher & Herscher and llene Herscher, Cora Gables, Gonzalo Alberto Gayoso, Miami, for appellants.
Calianne P. Lantz, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mother and father appeal orders adjudicating their child dependent. We affirm.
Addressing first the order adjudicating the child dependent as to the mother, we find that there is competent substantial record evidence to support the court's findings. V.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 813 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The Department presented evidence of neglect as the child was permitted to live in an environment that could significantly impair or endanger the child's mental, physical or emotional health. § 39.01(45), Fla. Stat. (2000); V.G..
We also affirm the order adjudicating the child dependent as to the father. "[Wjhere counsel has been appointed for the defendant parent, it is sufficient for notices, including the notice of trial, to be given to counsel." M.E. v. Florida Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 728 So.2d 367, 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). See M.A. v. Florida Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 760 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Here, the father's counsel was given notice of the hearing in advance of the date. The father was aware of the original hearing date but chose not to attend. The court properly entered the dependency order as to the father.
Based on the foregoing, the orders are
Affirmed.
GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ., concur.