R.A., FATHER 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 father's parental rights were properly terminated due to the threat to the children's well-being, the portion of the order based on "egregious conduct" must be stricken because it was not alleged in the pleadings.
The father appealed the termination of his parental rights to his 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.
R.A. (father) appeals the final order entered by the trial court terminating his parental rights to his twin children, J.A. and E.A., born on July 31, 2002. We affirm.
The trial court terminated the father’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 father’s egregious conduct.1 The father challenges -the court’s ruling, arguing first that the trial court erred in terminating his 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 in any of the pleadings. 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 father also argues that the trial court erred in terminating his 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(1)(f), Florida Statutes is stricken, in that such conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination. See R.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 867 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)(holding that portion of trial court’s termination order finding clear and convincing 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
-
J.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 44 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…r; specifically, sections 39.806(1)©, 39.806(l)(h), 39.806(l)(g) and 39.806(1)(£) of the Florida Statutes (2007). Accordingly, we strike those portions of [*661] the trial court’s order and otherwise affirm. See R.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 878 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). AFFIRMED as modified. SAWAYA and ORFINGER, JJ, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- R.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 867 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)