R.E.P. v. Department of Children & Family Services (961 So. 2d 989, 2007)

PER CURIAM.

Based on the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying R.E.P.’s motion for continuance. See L.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 946 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order adjudicating J.S. dependent as to R.E.P.

Affirmed.