IN THE INTEREST OF K.M. AND A.M., CHILDREN, T.M., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
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 trial court erred by failing to consider all statutory factors when terminating parental rights, specifically the suitability of a permanent custody arrangement with a relative.
The mother appealed an order terminating her parental rights. While grounds for termination existed, the issue was whether the Department proved by cl…
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 Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
T.M., the mother, appeals from the order terminating her parental rights to her children, K.M. and A.M. We reverse the order terminating the mother’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings.
The mother concedes, for the sake of argument, that at least one of the grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806, Florida Statutes (1999), is present. The issue then is whether the Department of Children and Families proved by clear and convincing evidence the additional requirement that termination is in the manifest best interests of the children. See §§ 39.802(4), 39.809(1), 39.810, Fla. Stat. (1999). The trial court’s order states that the court considered all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 in determining the manifest best interests of the children. The trial court made detailed factual findings in its order but specifically made written findings on only three of the eleven factors under section 39.810. Our concern is whether the trial court considered the factor of whether there is a suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the children. See § 39.810(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).
It appears that the children had been doing well in the maternal grandmother’s custody since they were sheltered in June 1998. The maternal grandmother did not testify regarding her ability or inclination to take permanent custody of the children. In addition, the trial transcript does not reveal any other evidence relating to this issue. Thus, we reverse the termination of parental rights as to the mother and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to consider all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 and enter an appropriate written order with factual findings. See In the Interest of C.K., 601 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. F.L., 880 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2004)…oner, usually DCF, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of the child. See L.O. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Fam. Servs., 807 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); In re K.M., 788 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); In re K.C.C., 750 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); C.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Fam. Servs., 812 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). As one court has explained, “[w]e are obliged to affirm the termination of parental rights if [DCF] has…
-
C.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 812 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…n whether DCFS has authority to terminate parental rights but also on the question whether it is in the child’s best interests to do so. See § 39.809(5), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re L.H., 647 So. 2d 311, 311-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also In re K.M., 788 So. 2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that when at least one of the grounds for termination of parental rights has been established, the “issue then is whether the Department of Children and Families proved by clear and convincing evidence the additional…
-
K.R.L. v. The Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 83 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…on whether DCF has authority to terminate parental rights but also on the question whether it is in the child’s best interests to do so. See § 39.809(5), Fla. Stat. (2009); In re L.H., 647 So. 2d 311, 311-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also In re K.M., 788 So. 2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that when at least one of the grounds for termination of parental rights has been established, the “issue then is whether the DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence the additional requirement that termination is…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- IN the Interest of C.K. v. State, 601 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Honorable J. Rogers Padgett, 601 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)