LOUIS GORDON AND FAITH GORDON, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIRIAM FREEMAN, AS GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILDREN, ETC., AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEES
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 court held that the parents' constitutional vagueness challenge was not preserved for appeal and that the statute was sufficiently specific when read in conjunction with another statutory definition.
Parents appealed an order terminating their parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the constitutionality of a statute.…
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 Constitutional Vagueness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Louis Gordon and Faith Gordon appeal an order terminating parental rights. We affirm.
In point one of the appeal the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that there was substantial competent evidence adduced in the ten day trial to support the order under review. The order shows that the trial court applied the correct legal standard. This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence.
The second point on appeal contends that subsection 39.464(5), Florida Statutes (1991) is unconstitutionally vague. This point was not raised below. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970) (“Constitutional issues, other than those constituting fundamental error, are waived unless they are timely raised.”); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review § 301 (1978). Assuming ar-guendo that the issue is cognizable under the fundamental error doctrine, we agree with appellees that subsection 39.464(5) must be read in conjunction with subsection 39.01(50), Florida Statutes (1991), which defines “substantial compliance” with particularity. The present statute has been revised in order to cure the deficiency identified in In the Interest of R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986), and is sufficiently specific.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1970)
- In the Interest of R.W. v. Pollock, 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1986)