L.C., NATURAL MOTHER OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, M.C.S., JR., V.M.W., JR., AND OF J.O.F.

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

PER CURIAM.

L.C. appeals a final judgment terminating her parental rights pursuant to sections 39.806(1)(b) and 39.806(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes. Section 39.806(1)(b) authorizes termination based on abandonment, which is defined as a situation in which a parent “while being able, has made no significant contribution to the child’s care and maintenance or has failed to establish or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the child, or both.” § 39.01(1), Fla. Stat. Section 39.806(1)(e)1. authorizes termination where a parent fails to “substantially comply with the case plan for a period of 12 months after an adjudication of the child as a dependent child.” § 39.806(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. After L.C.’s children were adjudicated dependent in 2019, the Department of Children and Families provided L.C. a case plan with the goal of reunification. Amongst other tasks, the case plan required L.C. to maintain suitable housing, provide proof of income, submit to random urinalysis, and engage in various counseling services. Over the next 18 months, L.C. completed evaluations for substance abuse, mental health, trauma, and anger management, but was inconsistent in following the subsequent recommendations. On several occasions, L.C. failed to provide a urinalysis sample upon request. Throughout this time, L.C. did not have her own housing and lived with various relatives. Although L.C. had sporadic employment and received regular payments from her aunt, she did not provide any financial support to her children.

The trial court found that the Department presented clear and convincing evidence that L.C. abandoned her children by failing to contribute to their care and maintenance despite having the means to do so. The trial court further found that L.C. had not substantially complied with her case plan because she failed to remedy the issues that led to her children’s dependency. Specifically, there was evidence that L.C. has not maintained suitable housing, has continued to use marijuana, and has allowed her unsafe relatives to be around her children.

This Court limits its review to whether the trial court’s judgment is supported by competent, substantial evidence. J.P. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 183 So. 3d 1198, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). This standard of review is “highly deferential.” N.L. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “A trial court’s finding that the evidence is clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will be overturned only if clearly erroneous or lacking evidentiary support.” A.P. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 327 So. 3d 879, 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).

We find that the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. There was sufficient evidence to prove the grounds for termination in sections 39.806(1)(b) and

39.806(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes. The evidence also supports the trial court’s findings that termination was in the children’s manifest best interests and that it was the least restrictive means of protecting the children from harm.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________