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

M.R. v. Department of Children & Families952 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) · 5D06-3183

Court
5th DCA
Decided
2007-03-29
Case
TPR
Appellant
Both parents

Affirmed Termination of both parents' rights affirmed because the findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and not clearly erroneous.

Issue
TPR: sufficiency of evidence, general
Law cited
§ 39.806

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

On CourtListener
952 So.2d 1208 (2007)

M.R. Father of M.R., II, a Child, et al., Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee.

Nos. 5D06-3183, 5D06-3708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 29, 2007.

Carl S. New, Ocala, for Appellant, M.R.

Peter J. Sziklai, Ocala, for Appellant, R.G.

Ralph J. McMurphy, Wildwood, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families.

Mercedes Scopetta, Orlando, for Appellee, Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

The parental rights of the parents of M.R., II, were terminated by the trial court after two years of efforts at reunification. In the end, the trial court found that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the grounds for termination pursuant to section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2005), and that termination was in the manifest best interests of the child. The court concluded, as well, that there was no reasonable basis for improvement or recovery, and that termination was the least restrictive means available to protect the child.

A trial court's finding that termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence is given the benefit of the presumption of correctness, and should not be disturbed absent a showing of clear error or a *1209 lack of evidentiary support. See D.P. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 930 So.2d 798, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 843 So.2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). As there has been no demonstration that the ruling was either clearly erroneous, or unsupported by the evidence, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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