J.G., THE FATHER, AND R.G., THE MOTHER, APPELLANTS,
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.
Parents appeal the trial court's termination of their parental rights to their child. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the termination was supported by competent substantial evidence of the parents' failure to comply with case plans, ongoing substance abuse and criminal conduct, and episodic abandonment of the child.
The trial court's termination of parental rights was affirmed as supported by competent substantial evidence. The parents' procedural due process claim was not preserved for appeal because it was raised for the first time on appeal.
[1] Termination of parental rights requires a two-step process: first, finding statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence, and second, considering the child's manifes…
[2] Appellate review of a trial court's termination of parental rights is limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“First, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2007), has been established.”
Establishes the first prong of the statutory test for termination of parental rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parents had been involved in the dependency system for six years while attempting to address a continuing pattern of substance abuse, domestic vio…
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 Criminal Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
A father and a mother appeal the trial court’s final judgment terminating their parental rights as to their child, R.G. On appeal, the parents claim that their procedural due process rights were violated and raise various issues related to the sufficiency of the evidence against them. We affirm, concluding that the termination of parental rights was supported by competent substantial evidence.
There is a multi-step process inherent in the statutory scheme for termination of parental rights. First, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2007), has been established. Rathburn v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 826 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Second, the trial court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child by evaluation of all relevant factors, including those set out in section 39.810. Id. In addition, the Department must establish that termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm. In re G.C., 6 So.3d 643, 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). While a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence, our review is limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. See T.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So.2d 1060, 1061-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
In a well-reasoned order, the trial court found that the parents, who had been involved in the dependency system for six years while attempting to address their continuing pattern of substance abuse, domestic violence, and other criminal conduct: (1) failed to substantially comply with their case plans; (2) demonstrated a pattern of substance abuse, criminal activity, and inappropriate decisions pertaining to the child, which would continue irrespective of the provision of services; and (3) engaged in “episodic abandonment” in that the parents were given multiple opportunities to reunite with their child but had “botched” these events by committing crimes and being incarcerated, leaving the child to languish in the foster care system for years. The court found that termination of the parental rights was in the manifest best interest of the child, considering the factors set forth under sec*776tion 39.810, and that termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child. Our review of the record shows that the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. See C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 953 So.2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“A trial court’s determination that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless it may be said as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing.”). Notwithstanding the natural parents’ love for their child, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s finding by clear and convincing evidence that the parents engaged in “episodic abandonment” of the child. See M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 867 So.2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Finally, the parents’ claim that their procedural due process rights were violated under the Rules of Juvenile Procedure was raised for the first time in this appeal, and therefore was not preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
FARMER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
J.E., Sr. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 126 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…convincing evidence, our review is limited to whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s judgment. See T.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So. 2d 1060, 1061-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 22 So. 3d 774, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Appellate courts review orders terminating parental rights using a “highly deferential” standard of review: “[t]hat is, ‘a finding that evidence is clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be o…
-
M.D. v. State, 187 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ile a trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights must be based upon clear and convincing evidence, our review is limited to. whether competent substantial, evidence supports the trial court’s judgment.” J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 22 So. 3d 774, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “[S]o long as the trial court’s ruling on one of the statutory grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes, is supported by the evidence, the court’s decision is affirmable.” J.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families,…
-
S.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 190 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ing-evidence; - 2) Termination is in the manifest best interest of the child under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2014); and 3) Termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm. J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 22 So. 3d. 774, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA .2009). Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings as to. the first and second steps in this analysis. Rather, she challenges the court’s findings under the third step, arguing that termination o£ her parental rights was…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Litem v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 826 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- M.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 867 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- T.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 961 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Huff v. State, 953 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- In the Interest of G.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 6 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Bacon v. State, 953 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)