Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of R.K. and B.K., children. K.K., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; STATEWIDE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OFFICE; and S.K., Father, Appellees. No. 2D2026-0717 November 13, 2026 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daryl M. Manning, Judge. K.K., pro se. Tara Scott Lynn of Law Offices of Tara J. Scott, P.A., Oldsmar, for Appellee S.K. Mary Soorus, Children's Legal Services, Tampa, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd Weitz, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Tallahassee, for Appellee Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office. LaROSE, Judge. K.K. (the Mother) appeals the trial court's order dismissing her dependency petition. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). The Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the petition without allowing an opportunity to amend. We agree. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.310(d); Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. S.H., 666 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ("The court erred, however, in dismissing the petition to determine T.H. dependent on the ground that HRS had failed to allege in its petition the specific acts of negligence and/or abandonment proved at trial. This was error, because Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.310(d) precludes dismissal of a petition 'on account of any defect in the form of the petition.' "); In re A.S., 586 So. 2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("Generally, a dependency petition should not be dismissed for being vague, indistinct or misleading, but rather is subject only to a motion for a more definite statement."). Thus, we reverse the order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 2