M.D., MOTHER OF J.A. AND E.A., CHILDREN, 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 while the trial court erred in terminating parental rights based on egregious conduct not alleged, sufficient evidence supported termination based on the threat to the children's well-being.
The mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her twin children. The trial court based the termination on the parent-child relationshi…
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 Egregious Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
M.D. (mother) appeals the final order entered by the trial court terminating her parental rights to her twin children, J.A. and E.A., born on July 31, 2002. We affirm.
The trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or health of the children, and on the basis of the mother’s egregious conduct.1 The mother challenges the court’s ruling, arguing first that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights based upon a finding of “egregious conduct” because the Department of Children and Families (DCF) never alleged egregious conduct as a basis for termination. DCF properly responds by conceding error on this issue and, therefore, we strike the portions of the termination order which cite to the issue of egregious conduct.
The mother also argues that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the well-being of the children. Our review of the record reveals that sufficient evidence was presented during the termination hearing to support the trial court’s decision that termination was warranted in this case. As such, the court’s ruling is affirmed.
Accordingly, the trial court’s termination order is affirmed in all aspects, except that portion finding clear and convincing evidence of egregious conduct, pursuant to section 39.806(l)(f), Florida Statutes, which is stricken, in that such conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination. See R.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 867 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)(holding that portion of trial court’s termination order finding clear and con vincing evidence of egregious must be stricken because such conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination).
AFFIRMED, as modified.
PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . See § 39.806(1)(c) & (f), Fla. Stat. (2001).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 940 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…y the section. N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 843 So. 2d 996, 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we strike the portions of the termination order that cite to the issue of egregious conduct. See M.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 871 So. 2d 311, 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Similarly, we strike the portions of the termination order that cite to section 39.806(l)(e) with respect to Da.L. The Guardian Ad Litem properly concedes that it was error to terminate parental rights as to him based on se…
-
J.K. v. Dep't OF Child., 925 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…y, the Department never pled or argued abandonment as a basis for termination of Appellant’s rights, nor was this issue tried by the consent of the parties. Under these circumstances, the order must be reversed. M.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 871 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Furthermore, the court’s finding of abandonment was not predicated on substantial competent evidence because no evidence was adduced that established any willful rejection by Appellant of his parental obligations. Appellant was…
Authorities Cited
- R.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 867 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)