C.S.C-D. v. Department of Children & Families

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See A.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 118 So.3d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court’s order, [850] Appellant needed to preserve these issues ‘by a motion for rehearing or ... [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected.’ ” (quoting D.T. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))); R.B. v. Dep’t Children & Families, 997 So.2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Mathieu v. Mathieu, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)). PALMER, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.