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

E.M. v. Department of Children & Families199 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) · 4D16-287AND4D16-578

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2016-07-06
Case
TPR
Appellant
Both parents
County
Broward

Affirmed Termination affirmed for the father on incarceration grounds and for the mother after counsel found no merit; remanded to correct a scrivener's error.

Issues
TPR ground: incarceration Affirmed, No-merit dismissal Affirmed, Written findings & sufficiency of the order Reversed & remanded
Facts
Parent's incarceration

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
CIKLIN, C.J.

The father and the mother appeal the order terminating their parental rights. Appellate counsel for the mother moved to withdraw, asserting the absence of any issue of merit. The mother declined to retain replacement counsel or file an initial brief. Accordingly, we affirm as to the mother. We also affirm as to the father. However, we remand for the correction of a scrivener’s error that applies to both the mother and the father.

In its petition for termination of parental rights, the Department of Children and Families asserted multiple grounds for termination of parental rights, but the trial court ultimately relied on only two grounds — that the father “is an incarcerated parent and the time period for which the father is expected to be incarcerated will constitute a significant portion of the child’s minority,” and “continuing the parental relationship with the father would be harmful to the minor child.” See § 39.806(1)(d)l., 8., Fla. Stat. (2014). On appeal, the father makes numerous arguments pertaining to section 39.806(1)(d)l. We find no merit to the issues raised by the father and affirm the termination of parental rights. However, we remand for the trial court to correct a scrivener’s error. The judgment contains language indicating that termination was based on all the grounds alleged in the petition. Because the ground of abandonment was withdrawn and it is apparent that termination was not based on abandonment, the judgment should clarify that termination is based only on subsections 39.806(1)(d) 1. and 3.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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