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

A.H. v. Department of Children & Family Services915 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) · 2D05-1810

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2005-12-09
Case
TPR
Appellant
Both parents

Affirmed Termination affirmed for all three children; the case plan ground was struck for the never-adjudicated youngest child, but the threat-to-child ground supported termination.

Issues
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse Reversed, TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child Affirmed, TPR: sufficiency of evidence, general Affirmed
Law cited
§ 39.806(1)(c), (1)(e) (now § 39.806(1)(e)1.)

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

On CourtListener
WALLACE, Judge.

Appellants, A.H. (the Mother) and A.B. (the Father), separately appeal from an Order of Termination of Parental Rights. The appellants’ children are W.B. (born July 6, 2001), B.B. (born October 26, 2002), and Be.B. (born February 28, 2004). We affirm, without discussion, the order’s termination of the Mother’s and the Father’s parental rights to W.B. and B.B. However, we reverse the order’s termination of the Mother’s and the Father’s parental rights to Be.B. based on section 39.806(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2003). Be.B. was never declared dependent, which is a prerequisite to termination under this provision. See J.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 819 So.2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus section 39.806(1)(e) was not a valid legal ground for termination as to Be.B. Nevertheless, there is competent, substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s termination of the Mother’s and the Father’s parental rights to Be.B. under section 39.806(1)(c). Therefore, we affirm the termination of the Mother’s and the Father’s parental rights to Be.B., but we reverse and remand for the entry of an amended termination order removing all references to section 39.806(1)(e) that concern Be.B.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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