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

P.C. v. Department of Children & Families155 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) · 4D14-2803

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2015-02-11
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father
County
Broward

Affirmed Termination affirmed on the continuing-involvement and case-plan grounds; abandonment was unsupported, so the judgment must be amended to omit it.

Issues
TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child Affirmed, TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse Affirmed, TPR ground: abandonment Reversed, Written findings & sufficiency of the order Affirmed, Least restrictive means Affirmed

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
PER CURIAM.

The father argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights to his son: (1) without competent, substantial evidence of the grounds alleged by the Department of Children and Families under sections 39.806(1)(c), 39.806(1)(e)l., and 39.806(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2012); (2) without making statutorily-required findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) because termination of his parental rights was not the least restrictive means to protect his son from harm.

We affirm as to the second and third arguments without discussion. On the first argument, we conclude that competent, substantial evidence did not support the grounds alleged under section 39.806(1)(b). However, we conclude that competent, substantial evidence supported the grounds alleged under sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(e)l., and that such evidence was sufficient to support the termination of parental rights.

Therefore, we affirm the termination of parental rights, but with instructions to the circuit court to amend the final judgment to indicate in its conclusions of law that the termination was based on the grounds alleged under sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(e)l., and not on the grounds alleged under section 39.806(1)(b).

Affirmed with instructions.

WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ„ concur.

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