The father appealed the trial court’s order adjudicating his children dependent based upon an unsecured gun being found in the home.
The Second District Court of Appeal (Second DCA) reversed the dependency adjudication holding the “application of § 39.01(15)(f) requires “the necessity of a continuing risk-not just a risk that existed sometime in the past, but a risk that is alive and merits judicial interference in the parent-child relationship to protect the child’s welfare.”J.O. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 970 So.2d 395, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (Shepherd, concurring). “The purpose of a dependency proceeding is not to punish the offending parent but to protect and care for a child who has been neglected, abandoned, or abused.”R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 770 So.2d 1189, 1193 (Fla.2000). See § 39.501(2).
The Second DCA reversed, as the evidence was insufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were dependent.