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

E.P. v. Department of Children & Families1D19-0435

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2019-06-21
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother
County
Duval

Affirmed Termination affirmed on threat and egregious-conduct grounds; the three-removals ground struck because the children were removed only twice.

Issues
TPR ground: three or more out-of-home placements Reversed, TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child Affirmed, TPR ground: egregious conduct Affirmed

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

Court's PDF On CourtListener
          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D19-435
                  _____________________________

E.P., Mother of S.P., a Child,

    Appellant,

    v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. David Gooding, Judge.

                           June 21, 2019


PER CURIAM.

     E.P. appeals the final judgment that terminated her parental rights to S.P., raising five arguments, including challenges to each of the three separate grounds found to justify termination. As E.P. argues and Appellee concedes, the trial court erred in finding grounds for termination pursuant to section 39.806(1)(l), Florida Statutes, because children were only removed from E.P.’s care on two occasions, whereas the statute requires removal on at least three occasions. E.P. has not shown any further reversible error, and the trial court properly terminated her rights under sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(f). Therefore, we affirm the termination of E.P.’s parental rights under sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(f), but reverse the portion of the order finding grounds for termination under section 39.806(1)(l) and remand for this ground to be stricken from the order. See A.B. ex rel. J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 
969 So. 2d 422, 422
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Candice K. Brower, General Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Gainesville; Robert Keep, Jr., Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Jacksonville; Crystal McBee Frusciante of Frusciante Law Firm, P.A., Sunrise, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee and Stephanie Marusak Marchman, Gray Robinson, P.A., Pro Bono Counsel, Gainesville, for Guardian ad Litem Program. 

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