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

J.C. v. Department of Children & Families172 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) · 3D15-887

Court
3rd DCA
Decided
2015-08-05
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother

Affirmed Termination affirmed on case plan noncompliance; the order was imprecise and cited the wrong subparagraph, but the record supported the ground, so error was harmless.

Issues
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse, Written findings & sufficiency of the order

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

Appellant J.C: appeals a final judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her daughter. We find the order on appeal to be less than precise in articulating that (i) J.C. materially breached her case plan, and (ii) J.C. would be unlikely or unable to comply substantially with the case plan by the time of its expiration.

We conclude, however, that record evidence, together with the trial court’s detailed consideration of J.C.’s conduct, support a finding that (i) J.C. materially breached her case plan, as provided in section 39.806(1)(e)2. of the Florida Statutes, and (ii) clear and convincing evidence in the record establishes that J.C. would be unlikely or unable to comply substantially with the case plan within its twelvemonth duration. We agree with the Department of Children & Families that citation to section 39.806(1)(e)l. in the conclusion of the trial courfs order constitutes harmless error.

Affirmed.

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