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

S.R. v. Department of Children & Families1D21-0504

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2021-07-06
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother
County
Walton

Affirmed Termination for case plan noncompliance was affirmed despite the mother's recent progress because competent substantial evidence supported the ground, best interests and least restrictive means.

Issues
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse, Manifest best interests, Least restrictive means

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. 1D21-504
                  _____________________________

S.R., mother of E.C. and S.R., minor children,

    Appellant,

    v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. Jeffrey E. Lewis, Judge.

                            July 6, 2021


PER CURIAM.

     The mother of minor children E.C. and S.R. appeals the final judgment terminating her parental rights under section 39.806(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2020), for failing to substantially comply with her case plan. Despite her slow start, the testimony at trial showed that the mother has made recent progress. Even so, competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that a statutory ground for termination of parental rights exists, that termination is in the children’s manifest best interests, and that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the children from harm. See J.B. v. C.S., 
186 So. 3d 1142, 1143
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming termination despite evidence of the parent’s “marked improvement”); N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 
843 So. 2d, 996, 1000
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“Where the trial court’s findings that the evidence is clear and convincing are supported by competent substantial evidence, and the appellate court cannot say that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing, the finding will not be set aside on appellate review.”).

    AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

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


Melissa Joy Ford, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, and Candice Kaye Brower, Office of Regional Conflict, Gainesville, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Children and Families; Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Sara Goldfarb, Senior Attorney, and Rebecca Lynn Bartlett, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem. 

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