C.K. AND N.K., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of parental rights where substantial competent evidence established statutory grounds under section 39.806(l)(e) and manifest best interest of the child under section 39.810, with the department having provided meaningful services to the parents.
Termination of parental rights was proper where statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence and termination was in the child's manifest best interest.
[1] A trial court does not err in considering the child's best interest when determining whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interest of the child…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.K. and N.K. were the parents of a twelve-year-old child, A.K. The Department of Children & Families sought termination of their parental rights and …
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 Manifest Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.K. and N.K., the parents of twelve-year-old A.K., appeal the trial court’s final judgment terminating their parental rights. We affirm, concluding that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the statutory grounds for termination of their parental rights under section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes, were established by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence further supported the trial court’s determination under section 39.810 that it was in the manifest best interest of the child to terminate the parental rights of the parents.
Contrary to appellants’ contention on appeal, the record shows that the trial court considered whether the department provided meaningful services to the parents and properly found that the department did offer the mother and father meaningful services, including referrals for services over several years, and continued to do so even after the reunification case plan had expired. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s reference to the child’s best interest in its oral summary of findings and rulings. Further, we find no error in the trial court’s preparation of its written order setting forth detailed findings for the factors it had to consider in reaching its ruling that termination of parental rights was in the manifest best interest of the child.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
V.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 949 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…rights by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court must consider whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of the child, considering the factors listed in section 39.810.1 See C.K v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 942 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2004). In this case, the Department alleged, and the trial court found, termination warranted under sections 39.806(l)(b), 39.806(l)(c), and 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes. We affirm the trial cou…