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.R. v. Department of Children & Families773 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) · 5D00-1789

Court
5th DCA
Decided
2000-12-22
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother

Reversed & remanded Termination order vacated for lacking factual findings and conflicting with the oral ruling, which relied on grounds the record supported.

Issues
Written findings & sufficiency of the order Reversed & remanded, TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child Affirmed, TPR ground: prior involuntary TPR of a sibling Affirmed
Law cited
§ 39.806(1)(c), (1)(e), (1)(i) (now § 39.806(1)(e)1.) · § 39.809(5)

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

Section 39.809(5), Florida Statutes (1999) requires a trial court to enter a written order with findings of fact and conclusions of law when terminating parental rights. In this case, the Department of Children and Families concedes that the order terminating J.R.’s parental rights as to T.R., her minor child, is deficient because it fails to make specific findings of fact. We must vacate the order and direct the trial court on remand to comply with section 39.809(5).

Additionally, the trial court’s oral pronouncements at the termination hearing do not conform to its written order. The written order indicates that termination resulted in part from failure to comply with a case plan pursuant to Florida Statutes, section 39.806(1)(e). However, oral pronouncement indicated that J.R.’s rights were being terminated pursuant to section 39.806(1)(c) and (i). These subsections provide that termination is proper *662[wjhen the parent ... engages in conduct toward the child or toward other children that demonstrate that the continuing involvement of the parent ... in the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental or emotional health of the child irrespective of the provision of services” or if parental rights have been terminated as to a child’s sibling. It is clear from the record that termination was proper under section 39.806(1)(c) and (i). Therefore, we direct the trial court to remedy the inconsistency upon remand.

We find that J.R. s remaining arguments are without merit.

ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.

COBB, PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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