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

C.B. v. Department of Children & Families199 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) · 5D16-1147-2

Court
5th DCA
Decided
2016-09-07
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother

Affirmed Termination affirmed on case plan noncompliance, but the abandonment finding struck because the mother regularly visited and brought gifts; order remanded for modification.

Issues
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse Affirmed, TPR ground: abandonment Reversed
Law cited
§ 39.01(1) · § 39.806(1)(b), (1)(e)

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

C.B., mother of R.N., appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights as to R.N. We affirm the order of termination based on section 39.806(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2016). See C.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 178 So.3d 937, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (recognizing that an appellate court will affirm the order terminating parental rights if “upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there is any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court’s judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.” (quoting D.G. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 77 So.3d 201, 206-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))). However, because the record reflects that, absent a period of one month, C.B. regularly visited with the child, provided some *529toys and clothing items for the child, and the child appeared happy to see C.B. during the scheduled visits, we reverse as to the finding of abandonment under sections 39.01(1) and 39.806(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), and remand for modification of the order. See J.L. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 143 So.3d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). (citing S.L. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 120 So.3d 75, 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also A.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 162 So.3d 335, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing § 39.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2014)).

AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED.

LAWSON, C.J., EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur. -

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