sought visitation rights with respect to the child. Florida law, however, does not allow a non-parent to seek custody or visitation. See generally Wakeman v. Dixon, 921 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Therefore, Appellant’s civil action was dismissed. Appellant then sought to force visitation by filing a dependency action. Her petition alleged that M.N.B. is dependent within the meaning and intent of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, in that Appellee abused and/or neglected the minor child by cutting off all contact between the child and Appellant, causing the child significant harm. Hearings were held on the matter during which Appellant presented the testimony of Dr. Deborah Day, a licensed psychologist. Dr. Day testified that there could be psychological damage inflicted on the child i ) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the petition for dependency was
holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children holding that once juvenile court found children dependent it had exclusive jurisdiction to determine their custody holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time the motion to terminate stated that dss was given legal custody of the minor children and the record included a copy of an order in effect when the motion was filed that awarded dss custody of the children holding testimony relating to childrens expressed apprehensions over custody fight and charges parents were making against each other and concerning the atmosphere of turmoil created by a custody battle was insufficient to declare children dependent