Case Name: J.O., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-11-07
Citations: 970 So. 2d 395
Docket Number: No. 3D07-595
Parties: J.O., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, C.J., and RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 970
Pages: 395–399

Head Matter:
J.O., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.
No. 3D07-595.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 7, 2007.
■ Kevin Coyle Colbert, Miami, for appellant.
Karla Perkins, Miami; Hillary S. Kamb-our, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, C.J., and RAMIREZ, and SHEPHERD, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The father, J.O., appeals an order adjudicating his minor children, C.O. and J.O., dependent. Because we conclude that the children's physical and. mental health were at substantial risk of imminent harm, we affirm the trial court's order.
In August of 2005, the Department of Children and Family Services ("Department") received an abuse report indicating that a step-sibling of J.O. and C.O. shot another step-sibling at the home of their biological mother. The father, J.O., lived at a different residence. He was given temporary custody of his biological children, J.O. and C.O., at the shelter hearing.
On or about September 14, 2005, the children's maternal grandmother advised the court that the father was dealing and using drugs in the home where the children were residing. On September 15, 2005, a modification of placement petition was filed, stating that the court ordered removal of the children on September 14 when J.O. tested positive for cocaine and marijuana. The children were placed in temporary custody with their maternal grandmother. On September 26, 2005, the Department filed a dependency petition as to the father, which was later dismissed. No order was entered.
In a disposition hearing held on December 6, 2005, the trial court refused to return the children to their father because of his alleged drug use. The Department then filed a second petition for dependency against the father alleging the children were at risk of harm due to his alleged use of drugs, sale of drugs, and criminal record. On April 11, 2006, an adjudicatory trial was held as to the father. The court found both children dependent, but did not enter a final order. After several informal attempts to secure an adjudicatory order, the father filed a motion to compel entry of an adjudicatory order. On January 11, 2007, an adjudicatory order was rendered declaring the children dependent as to the father, which the father now appeals.
In a dependency proceeding, the allegations contained in the dependency petition must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. J.C. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Additionally, a determination of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be upheld on appeal if the trial court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence. Id. See also A.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 901 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
In the case before us, the trial court applied the correct law using the statutory definition of a dependent child as defined in section 39.01(14), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides, in pertinent part:
"Child who is found to be dependent" means a child who, pursuant to this chapter, is found by the court:
(a) To have been abandoned, abused, or neglected by the child's parent or parents or legal custodians;
(f) To be at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect by the parent or parents or legal custodians.
In addition, the trial court found that the Department established by a preponderance of the evidence that the children lived in an environment where: 1) their father conducted the sale of drugs from inside of their home; and 2) their father was known throughout the community as "Mr. Black," a drug dealer. We thus conclude that the trial court applied the correct law concerning the childrens' dependency, and its ruling was supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Here, the testimony and evidence in the record demonstrates that the father conducted the sale of drugs on the property where the children lived and while they were present. We find our decision in J.C. v. Florida Department of Children & Family Services, 937 So.2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), to be directly on point. In J.C., we held:
While there is no evidence that the children were present or even aware that their father was selling drugs from the structure within the curtilage and directly behind their home, and no evidence of violence, based upon the ages of the children (ten and a half, and seven years of age), the proximity of the drugs, the number of transactions, the fact that the transactions occurred throughout the day and evening,- and the presence of an unsecured firearm within the home, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that the children's physical and mental health were at substantial risk of imminent harm.
Id. at 187. Consequently, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence here to support the trial court's finding that the children's physical and mental health were at substantial risk of imminent harm. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order adjudicating C.O. and J.O. dependent as to their father.
Affirmed.
GERSTEN, C.J., and RAMIREZ, J., concur.