FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-3280
_____________________________
K.M., Mother of G.M., J.M., A.M., N.M., A.M., and K.M.,
Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James P. Nilon, Judge.
August 2, 2021
PER CURIAM.
K.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights to four of her children—A.M., N.M., A.M., and K.M. The trial court terminated K.M.’s rights in a detailed order after a lengthy trial. The three grounds for termination were chronic drug abuse rendering the parent incapable of parenting, egregious conduct that threatens the child, and that the continued involvement of the parent in the child’s life threatens the child, irrespective of services. § 39.806(1)(c), (f), (j), Fla. Stat. (2020). K.M.’s argument on appeal is that the grounds were not supported by the evidence. K.M. claims the Department failed to prove a link between her behavior and her children’s injuries and neglect. We disagree and affirm.
This case began when K.M. decided to leave her one-year-old daughter, A.M., with a drug addict she had just met. A.M. returned with burns on several parts of her body (including inside her mouth), a leg broken in three places, and other serious injuries. The physical evidence suggested intentional infliction of these injuries. K.M. has a long history of drug abuse and has failed to complete treatment. All four children were born drug dependent. They received little to no treatment despite their need for follow- up medical care. The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that in K.M.’s care the children were, at least, neglected.
Termination of parental rights criteria focus on a parent’s ability to safely care for children and largely turns on the parent’s past behavior. That the Department could not prove that K.M. personally caused the injuries to A.M. does not foreclose the trial court’s finding that her involvement in the children’s lives threatens them. And the other evidence, which established a pattern of neglect and excuses, also supports the finding.
Our review of the trial court’s decision is deferential, and the trial court will be overturned only if termination was clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. J.E. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 126 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Because the termination of K.M.’s parental rights was supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm.
RAY, WINOKUR, and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Marynelle Hardee of Hardee Legal, PLLC, Gainesville, for Appellant K.M. Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J Lee, Senior Attorney, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.
Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Jacksonville, for Appellee Department of Children and Families.