Dependency Law Finder

       Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida
                          Opinion filed July 13, 2022.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
                            ________________
                              No. 3D22-349
                       Lower Tribunal No. 02-15849
                          ________________
                            B.P., The Father,
                                  Appellant,
                                     vs.
           Department of Children and Families, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angélica D. Zayas, Judge.
     Cooke Law P.A., and Stewart M. Cooke, for appellant.
      Karla Perkins, for appellee, Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division (Tallahassee), for appellee, Guardian ad Litem.

Before EMAS, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.
     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See D.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 

 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The standard of review on a termination of parental rights case is ‘highly deferential.’ That is, ‘[a] finding that evidence is clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support’” (quoting N.L. v. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 

 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)); J.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 

, 78-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (noting that an appellate court will not review the evidence in a light most favorable to the parent, but in a neutral manner to assess whether the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion; so long as the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling on one of the statutory grounds alleged as a basis for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes, a reviewing court will affirm that ruling). See also Lecorps v. Star Lakes Ass’n, Inc., 

 at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2022) (“It is axiomatic that the trial court retains inherent authority to reconsider any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or another order terminating the action”) (citing Silvestrone v. Edell, 

 (Fla. 1998)); C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 

 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (observing that “the circumstances surrounding the creation of the case plan may extend to problems identified subsequent to the children's removal, and not exclusively those identified contemporaneous to removal.”)