J.C., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of parental rights on two statutory grounds but reversed the abandonment finding because it was not pleaded in the petition.
Termination of parental rights is affirmed where two statutory grounds are established, even though one ground (abandonment) was erroneously found without proper pleading.
[1] Termination of parental rights on a statutory ground not pleaded in the petition constitutes reversible error, but the termination may be affirmed if other properly plead…
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 intelligence“DCF must 'present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating and clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child'”
Court explaining the evidentiary standard required for termination of parental rights
J.C.'s parental rights to her child D.H. were terminated by the trial court. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) established termination bas…
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 Statutory Grounds For Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court entered a final order terminating J.C.’s parental rights to her child, D.H.
We affirm the final order terminating J.C.’s parental rights in all respects except one. DCF concedes that the trial court erred by terminating J.C.’s parental rights based on abandonment, as set forth in Florida Statutes section 39.806(l)(b), where this ground was not pleaded as a basis for termination in the petition and DCF failed to seek amendment of the petition to include this ground as to J.C. See R.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 872 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
However, despite this error, the termination of J.C.’s parental rights itself is affirmed, because two other grounds supporting termination were established by DCF. See S.S. v. D.L., 944 So. 2d 553, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(ex-plaining that DCF must “present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating and clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child”)(emphasis added).
Consequently, we reverse only the portion of the order terminating J.C.’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment and remand for this finding to be stricken from the order.
Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part, And Remanded.
GUNTHER, HAZOURI, JJ., and METZGER, ELIZABETH A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 961 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t while incarcerated, she failed [*1063] to provide any documentation to substantiate her claims. . Our holding makes it unnecessary to consider whether termination was warranted under section 39.806(l)(c). See J.C. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 959 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We have considered the other issues raised by the mother and find them to be without merit.…
-
Z.M. v. State, 981 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…1006 (Fla.1989).” Id. The trial “court erred in relying on this ground because HRS had neither pled it nor added it by amendment.” In the Interest of A.D.J., 466 So. 2d 1156, 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also J.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 959 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing R.S., 872 So. 2d at 413) (trial court erred by terminating parental rights based on abandonment where this ground was not pleaded in the petition and DCF did not seek amendment of the petition to include this ground); K.S…
-
A.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 969 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…e), but reverse that portion of the order terminating her parental rights on the ground that she abandoned her children under section 39.806(1)(b) and remand for this finding to be stricken from the order. See J.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 959 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). [*423] AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 872 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Autonation, Inc. v. Armijo, 944 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)