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.T. v. Department of Children & Families174 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) · 3D15-1155

Court
3rd DCA
Decided
2015-09-02
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father
County
Miami-Dade

Affirmed Termination affirmed on abandonment: the father could not care for or support the child, who needed permanency with siblings in a pre-adoptive home.

Issues
TPR ground: abandonment, Manifest best interests, Least restrictive means
Facts
Abandonment / no contact or support

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
ROTHENBERG, J.

R.T. (“the father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his daughter, R.A.T. (“the child”), who was eight years old when the final judgment for termination of parental rights was entered on February 2, 2015. Termination of R.T.’s parental rights was based on *578 abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court’s finding that termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is “in desperate need of permanency” that R.T. cannot provide.

The child and her three siblings, who share the same mother but have different fathers, have been living together in a pre-adoptive home for approximately two years, and their caregiver wishes to adopt all four siblings. The mother’s parental rights to the child and her three siblings have been terminated, and each of the respective fathers’ parental rights to the child’s three siblings also have been terminated. Although R.T. has maintained telephone contact with the child, the record supports the trial court’s findings that R.T. is unable to care for, support, and father his child; R.T. has no suitable family members to care for the child; and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised with her siblings, with whom she has bonded, and to achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family that wishes to adopt all four siblings and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the child throughout the pendency of this case. Because the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. T.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Sews., 905 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

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