R.W., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL., 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in terminating parental rights based on abandonment when it orally found no abandonment, and the amended petition did not allege the statutory basis for termination.
The trial court entered a final judgment terminating parental rights based on abandonment, despite orally stating there was no abandonment. The amende…
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 Case Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
R.W., the appellant/father (“Father”), appeals from a final judgment of termination of parental rights. Based upon the commendable confession of error by the Department of Children and Families, and our independent review, we reverse the final judgment.
The final judgment sets forth abandonment1 as the basis for the termination of Father’s parental rights. However, this conflicts with the trial court’s oral pronouncement at the conclusion of the trial, where the trial court announced: “I won’t find abandonment. I think you are right there is not a[n] abandonment here.” Where there is a conflict between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and its "written order, the oral pronouncement controls. B.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 864 So.2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Further, although the trial court’s oral pronouncement of termination appears to have been based upon a determination that the continuing involvement of the Father in the parent-child relationship threatens the safety or well-being of the child irrespective of the provision of services2, the Department acknowledges its amended petition did not allege such a statutory basis, but pleaded only abandonment.
We therefore reverse the final judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 282 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…i jurisdiction to review M.L.’s petition. Petition dismissed. 1 We note that the written order of July 25, 2019, neglects to mention the continued provision of services to M.L. The oral pronouncement controls. R.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 147 So. 3d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).…
Authorities Cited
- B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 864 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)