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

N.F. v. Department of Children & Families1D21-0865

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2022-01-06
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father
County
Duval

Affirmed Termination affirmed on the continuing-involvement ground, with best interests and least restrictive means upheld, so the alternative substance-abuse ground need not be reached.

Issues
TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child, 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. 1D21-865
                  _____________________________

N.F., father of N.F. and N.F., Each a Child,

    Appellant,

    v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Michael Kalil, Judge.

                          January 6, 2022


PER CURIAM.

     Appellant, the father of two minor children, challenges the final order terminating his parental rights on two grounds. We affirm.

     Our review shows that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Department proved at least one statutory ground, thereby complying with section 39.802(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020). The ground proven was Appellant “engaged in conduct towards the child or children that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the parent or parents in the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child, irrespective of the provision of services.” § 39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020).

     Since the Department needed to prove only one ground for termination, we need not decide whether the trial court correctly determined that Appellant’s alcohol abuse satisfied section 39.806(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as an alternative ground. See § 39.802(4)(a); R.V. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 
301 So. 3d 392
 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). Further, we affirm the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interest of the children and was the least restrictive means of protecting the children. See J.P. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. and Fams., 
183 So. 3d 1198
 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
    AFFIRMED. ROBERTS, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
                  _____________________________
    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

David Maldonado, Lakeland, for Appellant. Ward L. Metzger Children Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, Statewide Guardian ad Litem, Tallahassee; Beth Kathryn Roland, Defending Best Interests Project, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Orlando, for Guardian ad Litem. 

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