T.V., FATHER OF H.V., A CHILD
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Father T.V. appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights to child H.V. The District Court of Appeal affirms the termination but remands for correction of scrivener's errors in the written judgment, finding the trial court's substantive analysis was sound despite technical errors in the order.
The errors were scrivener's errors with no substantive effect. The trial court correctly addressed each statutory ground, made appropriate factual findings regarding termination of parental rights to H.V., and the trial court's analysis was sound. The judgment is affirmed but remanded for correction of the scrivener's errors.
[1] Scrivener's errors in a judgment do not require reversal if they do not substantively affect the court's analysis or decision.
[2] A trial court's misstatement of statutory grounds for termination of parental rights is a scrivener's error when the court later cites and discusses the correct grounds,…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court's analysis was sound, but remand for the trial court to correct scrivener's errors in the written judgment”
Establishes the court's holding that the substance of the decision was correct but technical errors needed correction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued a final judgment terminating the parental rights of both a mother and father. The judgment contained several technical errors: …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Grounds For Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
Lynn James Hinson, Orlando, for Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
T.V. (the Father) appeals the final judgment terminating his parental rights (TPR Order). We affirm in all respects and note that the trial court’s
analysis was sound, but remand for the trial court to correct scrivener's errors in the written judgment, which the Father identified in his initial brief and the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) conceded require entry of a corrected order. At the beginning of the TPR Order, the trial court cites the incorrect statutory grounds as a basis for the termination of both the Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. Later in the TPR order, in the section entitled, “Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights,” the trial court cites and discusses the correct legal grounds for termination, making it clear that the trial court’s initial misidentification of the correct statutory subsections had no substantive effect on the trial court’s analysis and decision.
In the ten-page TPR Order, the trial court mistakenly references a parent and children not subject to this case. Specifically, on page four of the TPR Order, the trial court incorrectly includes another father’s name when noting that the Father had notice of the proceeding. On page eight of the TPR Order, the trial court includes the wrong children’s names when ordering a commitment to DCF and discussing visitation. These mistakes too are mere scrivener’s errors and had no substantive effect as evidenced by the 2 trial court’s analysis of the best interests of both children in section 17 of the TPR Order. Finally, in section 15 of the TPR Order the trial court includes K.L.-V. when discussing grounds for terminating the Father’s parental rights. The trial court, however, repeatedly recognized that T.V. was not the legal father of K.L.-V. For example, the trial court noted at the hearing and explained in the TPR Order that another individual was the legal father of K.L.-V.
Additionally, the trial court limited the termination of the Father’s parental rights to H.V. in section 17 of the TPR Order. Considering the totality of the hearing and TPR Order, it is clear the inclusion of K.L.-V when discussing the grounds for terminating the Father’s parental rights in section 15 of the TPR Order was a scrivener’s error. Because the trial court correctly addressed the substance of each statutory ground and made the appropriate factual findings as to the termination of T.V.’s parental rights of H.V., we find that the errors identified were scrivener’s errors. See Tunstall v. Gonzalez-Tunstall, 278 So. 3d 254, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Accordingly, we affirm and remand only for the correction of the scrivener's errors.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
EVANDER, C.J, EISNAUGLE and NARDELLA, JJ., concur. 3