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

R.W. v. Department of Children & Families147 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) · 3D14-1271

Court
3rd DCA
Decided
2014-09-15
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father

Reversed & remanded Termination reversed on DCF's confession: the written abandonment finding contradicted the oral ruling, and the continuing-involvement ground the court relied on was never pleaded.

Issues
Written findings & sufficiency of the order, TPR ground: abandonment, TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child
Law cited
§ 39.806(1)(b), (1)(c)

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

On CourtListener
EMAS, J.

R.W., the appellant/father (“Father”), appeals from a final judgment of termination of parental rights. Based upon the commendable confession of error by the Department of Children and Families, and our independent review, we reverse the final judgment.

The final judgment sets forth abandonment1 as the basis for the termination of Father’s parental rights. However, this conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement at the conclusion of the trial, where the trial court announced: “I won’t find abandonment. I think you are right there is not a[n] abandonment here.” Where there is a conflict between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its "written order, the oral pronouncement controls. B.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 864 So.2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Further, although the trial court’s oral pronouncement of termination appears to have been based upon a determination that the continuing involvement of the Father in the parent-child relationship threatens the safety or well-being of the child irrespective of the provision of services2, the Department acknowledges its amended petition did not allege such a statutory basis, but pleaded only abandonment.

We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.3

. See § 39.806(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2013).

. See § 39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2013).

. We note that Father, in his initial brief, and the Department, in its confession, agree that the proper course on remand should include the entry of an adjudication of dependency and the establishment of a case plan for Father.

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