Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

T.C. v. Department of Children & Family Services995 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) · 1D08-2824

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2008-11-26
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father

Affirmed Termination affirmed on the continuing-threat ground and best interests, though the case-plan presumption was unavailable for one child.

Issues
TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child Affirmed, TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse Reversed, Manifest best interests Affirmed
Facts
Parent's substance abuse, Parent's incarceration

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

On CourtListener
995 So.2d 1106 (2008)

T.C., father of C.D., O.C., S.C., Z.C., minor children, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 1D08-2824.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 26, 2008.

William M. Atkinson, Jr., Panama City, for Appellant.

Adrienne C. Rodgers, Senior Attorney, Panama City, and Patricia M. Propheter, Appellate Counsel, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

Jennifer S. Paullin, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Orlando.

PER CURIAM.

As to all four children we affirm the findings and conclusions that the Department of Children and Family Services established grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2007), although we agree with appellant that the presumption in section 39.806(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), *1107 was unavailable to the Department as to Z.C. See generally C.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 812 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

The order of termination of parental rights and permanent commitment under review finds that the "parents do not have the ability to provide the children with food, clothing, or medical care" and cannot "provide for the children's safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health." Although habitual drug and alcohol use is not grounds, without more, for termination of parental rights, see C.C., 812 So.2d at 523, just as appellant's now-concluded thirteen-month incarceration is not in itself a basis for termination of parental rights, see B.C. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1046, 1057 (Fla.2004), neither do these factors undercut the trial court's findings that the parents are unable to care for these children without putting their health, safety and welfare at risk, or the conclusion that termination of parental rights is in the children's best interest.

Affirmed.

BROWNING, C.J., KAHN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.