CASANUEVA, Judge.
M.W. (the Mother) appeals the trial courts order adjudicating her daughter L.D.J. (the Child) dependent. We affirm the courts ultimate adjudication of dependency because its finding regarding the Mothers substance abuse was supported by competent substantial evidence. However, we accept the Appellees concession that the courts conclusory findings were inadequate, and we agree with the Mother that the court lacked competent substantial evidence to find that her mental health presents a prospective risk of abuse or neglect. We therefore reverse in part and remand for correction of the order with respect to those two matters.
In its order adjudicating the Child dependent, which was entered after an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court found that [t]he mother has issues with substance abuse, stability and mental health which if le[f]t unaddressed would place the child at harm. Those were the courts sole findings regarding the grounds for the adjudication. The Mother appeals that order, arguing that the courts findings were conclusory and inadequate and that the court lacked competent substantial evidence to adjudicate the Child dependent on the mental health and substance abuse grounds.
We review a dependency adjudication for an abuse of discretion. We will uphold the ruling if the circuit court applied the correct law and its findings are supported by competent substantial evidence.
R.M. v. Dept of Children & Family Servs., 40 So.3d 917, 917-18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing C.J. v. Dept of Children & Family Servs., 9 So.3d 750, 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ).
On the first issue, the Department of Children and Families and the Guardian ad Litem Program concede that the courts findings were insufficient. As we explained more fully in J.Z. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 106 So.3d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), detailed findings are important in dependency cases because they allow for meaningful appellate review, they help parents, counselors, and [Department] representatives understand what the court found to be the reasons for dependency and to plan for remedial action, and they can prove critical to future determinations in the case. Id. (quoting J.C.G. v. Dept of Children & Families, 780 So.2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ) (alteration in original). The courts order in this case was insufficient to serve those purposes; it did not provide the statutory basis for the findings nor did it provide any evidence supporting the findings, leaving the parties and this court in the dark regarding the specific basis for the adjudication. Accordingly, we reverse on this issue and remand for the court to provide more detailed findings.
Despite the insufficiency of the courts order, due to the time-sensitive nature of dependency cases, we have proceeded to consider the Mothers challenges to the substance of the courts dependency adjudication. We agree with the Mother that the court lacked competent substantial evidence to adjudicate the Child dependent based on the Mothers alleged mental health issues. Prospective risk of abuse, abandonment, or neglect may be found where a parent has an untreated mental health disorder ... [that] may cause the parent to act in a manner that harms the child. D.A. v. Dept of Children & Family Servs., 84 So.3d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). But [a]bsent a sufficient nexus between a psychiatric disorder and the likelihood that a parent will substantially impair the [childs] physical, mental, or emotional health, ... an adjudication of dependency cannot stand. B.D. v. Dept of Children & Families, 797 So.2d 1261, 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing E.M.A. v. Dept of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) ).
In this case, the only evidence concerning the Mothers mental health was her own testimony that she had been diagnosed at some unstated point in time as having anxiety and depression. There was no testimony presented from any experts who examined the Mother, nor was there any testimony presented from any witness establishing that the Mothers mental health issues affect her ability to care for the Child. The simple fact of a diagnosis without any evidence of a nexus between the diagnosis and a risk of harm to a child is insufficient to support an adjudication of dependency. Cf. D.A., 84 So.3d at 1139 (affirming adjudication of dependency when there was expert testimony establishing that the fathers mental health disorders affected his decision-making and had caused him to endanger his child in the past); S.S. v. Dept of Children & Families, 81 So.3d 618, 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reversing adjudication of dependency when there was no expert testimony describing the disorder or establishing how it could result in harm to the children and the Mother testified that she [was] undergoing therapy for the problem and [did] not cut herself in front of the children). Thus, the court lacked competent substantial evidence to conclude that the Mother has a mental health issue that poses a prospective risk of abuse or neglect, and the courts finding on this issue must be reversed.
While we reverse on those two issues, we affirm the courts finding that the Mothers substance abuse poses a prospective risk of abuse or neglect. [A] parents addictions can support a finding of prospective abuse or neglect sufficient to support an adjudication of dependency if the evidence establishes that the addiction will affect a parents ability to provide and care for his or her child. B.C. v. Dept of Children & Families, 846 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In determining whether a substance abuse problem is ongoing, and constitutes a present threat, a factor to consider is the proximity in time between an alleged act of drug use and the dependency proceeding. M.F. v. Dept of Children & Families, 975 So.2d 622, 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). And recent failed drug tests are sufficient to establish a parents present substance abuse. See id. at 626. In this case, the Mother received three therapeutic, or default, positive tests in the months leading up to the adjudicatory hearing as a result of her failure to submit to court-ordered drug tests, and there was no evidence that she ever produced a negative test. As a result, there was competent substantial evidence establishing the Mothers ongoing, present substance abuse.
After establishing present substance abuse, the Department was also required to show that the substance abuse will affect the Mothers ability to care for the Child. See B.C., 846 So.2d at 1275. On that point, testimony established that the Mother had taken Percocet one to five hours before embarking with the Child on a midnight road trip to Alabama and that she was visibly under the influence when law enforcement and a Department case worker met with her that evening. The combination of the therapeutic-positive drug screens and testimony showing her endangerment of the Child was sufficient to allow the court to find that her substance abuse will affect her ability to care for the Child. We therefore conclude that the courts finding regarding the Mothers substance abuse was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the trial courts order that adjudicates the Child dependent based on the Mothers substance abuse and stability (the latter of which the Mother did not challenge on appeal). We reverse the portion of the order concerning the Mothers mental health. Finally, we remand for the trial court to strike the mental health finding and to make additional findings of fact regarding the Mothers substance abuse and stability.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
KELLY and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.