K.M., MOTHER OF G.M., J.M., A.M., N.M., A.M., AND K.M.
v.
FLORIDA 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.
The appellate court affirmed the termination of a mother's parental rights, finding sufficient evidence of chronic drug abuse, egregious conduct, and ongoing threats to the children's safety. The court emphasized that the mother's past behavior and the children's neglect supported the termination decision.
Yes, the evidence supported the trial court's termination of the mother's parental rights. The court found competent, substantial evidence to support the grounds for termination.
[1] In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court may find that a parent's continued involvement threatens a child based on the parent's pattern of neglect…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Termination of parental rights criteria focus on a parent’s ability to safely care for children and largely turns on the parent’s past behavior.”
This quote explains the court's focus on the parent's history and ability to provide safe care.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother left her infant daughter with a drug addict, resulting in severe injuries to the child. The mother has a history of drug abuse and failed t…
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 Parental Fitness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
K.M. appeals the termination of her parental rights to four of her children—A.M., N.M., A.M., and K.M. The trial court terminated K.M.’s rights in a detailed order after a lengthy trial. The three grounds for termination were chronic drug abuse rendering the parent incapable of parenting, egregious conduct that threatens the child, and that the continued involvement of the parent in the child’s life threatens the child, irrespective of services. § 39.806(1)(c), (f), (j), Fla. Stat. (2020). K.M.’s argument on appeal is that the grounds were not supported by the evidence. K.M. claims the Department failed to prove a link between her
behavior and her children’s injuries and neglect. We disagree and affirm. This case began when K.M. decided to leave her one-year-old daughter, A.M., with a drug addict she had just met. A.M. returned with burns on several parts of her body (including inside her mouth), a leg broken in three places, and other serious injuries. The physical evidence suggested intentional infliction of these injuries. K.M. has a long history of drug abuse and has failed to complete treatment. All four children were born drug dependent. They received little to no treatment despite their need for follow-up medical care. The evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that in K.M.’s care the children were, at least, neglected. Termination of parental rights criteria focus on a parent’s ability to safely care for children and largely turns on the parent’s past behavior. That the Department could not prove that K.M. personally caused the injuries to A.M. does not foreclose the trial court’s finding that her involvement in the children’s lives threatens them. And the other evidence, which established a pattern of neglect and excuses, also supports the finding. Our review of the trial court’s decision is deferential, and the trial court will be overturned only if termination was clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support. J.E. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 126 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Because the termination of K.M.’s parental rights was supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm.
RAY, WINOKUR, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J.E., Sr. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 126 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)