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

K.H. v. Department of Children & Families1D2025-1718

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2026-06-04
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father
County
Washington

Affirmed Termination for case plan noncompliance affirmed; the court's adoption of a party-prepared judgment did not require reversal.

Issues
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse, Written findings & sufficiency of the order

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. 1D2025-1718
                  _____________________________ K. H., FATHER OF H.H., H.H., MINOR CHILDREN,
    Appellant,
    v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Timothy Allen Register, Judge.

                            June 4, 2026 PER CURIAM.
     Given our review of the record and the arguments of the Appellant and counsel, we find that Appellant has not demonstrated a basis on which to overturn the lower court’s final judgment. N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 
843 So. 2d 996, 999
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“We are obliged to affirm the termination of parental rights if [the Department] has met its burden to present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating parental rights, along with clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”). As such, we affirm. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.265(b) & 8.270(b); see also In re T.D., 
924 So. 2d 827, 831
 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Neither B.T., nor any of the other post-Berg- Perlow decisions of this court, requires reversal solely on the ground that a trial court has adopted a judgment prepared by one of the parties.”); M.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 
765 So. 2d 152, 153
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“It is undisputed that parental rights may be terminated pursuant to section 39.806(1)(e) if a parent fails to comply substantially with a case plan for a period of 12 months after a child is adjudicated dependent.”).

ROBERTS, NORDBY, and NEFF, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

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


K.H., pro se, Appellant.

Andrew McGinley, Ayobami Anuoluwapo Ajoke Adeoti, Sarah J. Rumph, for Appellee; Danielle Marie Contini, Jaime Generazzo, Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Charles Henry Williams, Guardian ad Litem. 

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