H.C., the Mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (2026)

Affirmed. See R.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 792 So. 2d 1269, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dependency order where “any due process concerns were never raised before the trial court and are therefore barred” (citing Hill v. State, 549 So. 2d 179, 182 (Fla. 1989))); J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 22 So. 3d 774, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“[T]he parents’ claim that their procedural due process rights were violated ․ was raised for the first time in this appeal, and therefore was not preserved for appellate review.”); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.265(b)(4) (“To preserve for appeal a challenge to the failure of the trial court to make required findings of fact in the final order, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”); Scognamillo v. Jamison, 389 So. 3d 624, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[W]here an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal.”) (quotation omitted); Mesa v. State, 431 So. 3d 577, 579 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (declining to reach the merits of an argument not raised in the initial brief: “[I]ssues not raised in the initial brief are considered waived or abandoned.”) (quotation omitted).

PER CURIAM.