940 So.2d 577 (2006)

K.S., Mother of D.L. and D.L., Children, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 5D06-828.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

October 27, 2006.

*578 Ryan Thomas Truskoski, of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Gail Linscott Silva, Kissimmee, for Appellee.

Thomas Wade Young, Orlando, for Guardian Ad Litem.

THOMPSON, J.

K.S. (mother) appeals the final order entered by the trial court terminating her parental rights to her children, De.L. and Da.L. We affirm.

The trial court terminated the mother's parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or health of the children, on the basis of the mother's failure to comply with a case plan, and on the basis of the mother's egregious conduct.^[1]

The mother challenges the court's ruling, arguing first that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights based upon subsections (c) or (f) because the petition never alleged these grounds as a basis for termination. K.S. correctly argues that, generally, it is error to terminate parental rights on grounds not alleged in the petition. See R.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 872 So.2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We agree that the evidence at trial did not address "egregious conduct" under section 39.806(1)(f) or establish the "deplorable, flagrant, or outrageous" conduct contemplated by the section. N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Services, 843 So.2d 996, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we strike the portions of the termination order that cite to the issue of egregious conduct. See M.D. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 871 So.2d 311, 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Similarly, we strike the portions of the termination order that cite to section 39.806(1)(e) with respect to Da.L. The Guardian Ad Litem properly concedes that it was error to terminate parental rights as to him based on section 39.806(1)(e) because he was never adjudicated dependent.

The mother also argues that the court erred in terminating her parental rights on the basis of section 39.806(1)(c), which was not cited in the petition. However, extensive evidence was introduced during the three-day hearing implicating section 39.806(1)(c), and the attorneys discussed this ground in closing. K.S.'s counsel did not object, and the issue was tried by implied consent. Cf. J.K. v. Dep't of Children, 925 So.2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (reversing where abandonment was not pled, argued, or tried by consent); T.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 905 So.2d 993, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). "Our review of the record reveals that sufficient evidence was presented during the termination hearing to support the trial court's decision that termination was warranted in this case. As such, the court's ruling is affirmed." M.D., 871 So.2d at 311.

*579 Accordingly, the trial court's termination order is affirmed, except those portions finding clear and convincing evidence of egregious conduct, pursuant to section 39.806(1)(f), or failure to comply with a case plan with respect to the younger Da. L., pursuant to section 39.806(1)(e), which are stricken. Id. at 311-12.

AFFIRMED, as modified.

PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] § 39.806(1)(c), (e) & (f), Fla. Stat. (2001).

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

Cited by 8 opinions

In this collection (7)

B.T. v. Department of Children & Families 1D19-2788 · 1st DCA 2020Affirmed Termination affirmed: the parents failed to preserve their objection to unpleaded grounds in the order, and missing rule 8.530 notice caused no prejudice.
X.T. v. Department of Children & Families 1D19-2974 · 1st DCA 2020Affirmed Termination affirmed because the parents did not preserve objections to unpleaded grounds in the order, and the missing ineffective-counsel notice caused no due process violation.
Q.L. v. Department of Children & Families 4D19-0526 · 4th DCA 2019Reversed Termination reversed because the mother completed all services and findings of ongoing domestic violence and housing instability were unsupported or stale.
In re D.J. 2D08-793 · 2nd DCA 2009 cites it 4 timesAffirmed Dependency adjudication affirmed because the mother lacked training and equipment for the infant's medical needs; unpleaded medical neglect was tried by consent despite DCF's misconduct.
Z.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services 1D07-5916-2 · 1st DCA 2008Reversed & remanded Termination reversed because the court relied on an unpleaded ground, appeared to use a lax evidentiary standard, and made no findings on the pleaded ground.
Z.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services 1D07-5916 · 1st DCA 2008Reversed & remanded Termination reversed because the court relied on an unpleaded ground, appeared to use a lax evidentiary standard, and made no findings on the pleaded ground.
W.S. v. Department of Children & Families 4D07-382 · 4th DCA 2007Affirmed Termination affirmed for the father's case plan failure; the unpleaded breach was tried by implied consent and incarceration did not excuse his inaction.

Elsewhere (1, on CourtListener)

Carter v. Hart 5th DCA · 2018 cites it 2 times

From CourtListener's citation data, every court it covers, which can miss citations (in short or unpublished orders especially).

Cites 4 opinions in this collection

Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.

T.M. v. Department of Children & Families 4D04-4750 · 4th DCA 2005Termination reversed: no evidence of threat to the child, no services were offered to the incarcerated father, and abandonment was never pleaded.
M.D. v. Department of Children & Families 5D03-2885 · 5th DCA 2004Termination affirmed on the threat-to-children ground; the egregious conduct finding was struck because DCF never pleaded it in the petition.
R.S. v. Department of Children & Families 4D03-3601 · 4th DCA 2004Termination stands on the case plan ground, but findings on an unpleaded incarceration subsection were struck as a denial of notice and a fair hearing.
N.L. v. Department of Children & Families 1D02-0454 · 1st DCA 2003Termination reversed because nothing showed the mother caused or knowingly failed to prevent the infant's fractures, and no case plan or services were offered.

Dependency Law Finder

Before you use this site

K.S. v. Department of Children & Families940 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) · 5D06-828

K.S., Mother of D.L. and D.L., Children, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

NOTES

Cited by 8 opinions

In this collection (7)

Elsewhere (1, on CourtListener)

Cites 4 opinions in this collection

K.S. v. Department of Children & Families940 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) · 5D06-828 Copy citation

K.S., Mother of D.L. and D.L., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

NOTES

Cited by 8 opinions

In this collection (7)

Elsewhere (1, on CourtListener)

Cites 4 opinions in this collection

K.S. v. Department of Children & Families940 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) · 5D06-828

K.S., Mother of D.L. and D.L., Children, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.