A.B., the mother of three children, appeals a final order terminating her parental rights. The finding of the trial court’s order terminating A.B.’s parental rights is supported by competent substantial evidence and termination is warranted under section 39.806(1)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes (2006), providing a basis for termination where the mother’s conduct threatens the well-being of her children irrespective of the provision of services by the Department of Children and Families and where she fails to comply with the case plan offered to her by the Department. The trial court erred, however, in terminating A.B.’s parental rights based on abandonment as the competent substantial evidence does not support termination based upon abandonment under section 39.806(1)(b). Accordingly, we affirm the termination of A.B.’s parental rights under section 39.806(1)(c) and (e), but reverse that portion of the order terminating her parental rights on the ground that she abandoned her children under section 39.806(1)(b) and remand for this finding to be stricken from the order. See J.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 959 So.2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
A.B. ex rel. J.B. v. Department of Children & Families969 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) · 1D07-2069
Affirmed Termination affirmed on the threat-to-child and case plan grounds, but the abandonment ground was unsupported by the evidence and must be stricken.
- Issues
- TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child Affirmed, TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse Affirmed, TPR ground: abandonment Reversed
- Law cited
- § 39.806(1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(e)
Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.
Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.
Cited by 3 opinions
In this collection (3)
- E.P. v. Department of Children & Families 1D19-0435 · 1st DCA 2019Affirmed Termination affirmed on threat and egregious-conduct grounds; the three-removals ground struck because the children were removed only twice.
- E.P. v. Department of Children & Families 1D19-435 · 1st DCA 2019Affirmed Termination affirmed on threat and egregious-conduct grounds; the three-removals ground struck because the children were removed only twice.
- K.W. v. Department of Children & Family Services 1D09-6507 · 1st DCA 2010 cites it 2 timesAffirmed Termination affirmed on two grounds, but the abandonment ground was struck for lack of clear and convincing evidence.
From CourtListener's citation data, every court it covers, which can miss citations (in short or unpublished orders especially).
Cites 1 opinion in this collection
Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.
- J.C. v. Department of Children & Families 4D06-5029 · 4th DCA 2007Termination affirmed on two other grounds, but the abandonment ground was struck because DCF never pleaded it in the petition.