P.C., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM, 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 Fourth District affirmed termination of parental rights under Florida Statutes sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(e)1, but reversed the trial court's reliance on section 39.806(1)(b) for lack of competent, substantial evidence.
Termination of parental rights is affirmed where competent, substantial evidence supports grounds under sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(e)1, but the trial court must amend its judgment to remove reliance on section 39.806(1)(b).
[1] Termination of parental rights under Florida Statutes section 39.806(1)(b) requires competent, substantial evidence and cannot be affirmed where such evidence is lacking,…
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 intelligenceA father challenged the circuit court's termination of his parental rights to his son on three grounds: lack of competent, substantial evidence for th…
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
The father argues that the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights to his son: (1) without competent, substantial evidence of the grounds alleged by the Department of Children and Families under sections 39.806(l)(c), 39.806(l)(e)l., and 39.806(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012); (2) without making statutorily-required findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) because termination of his parental rights was not the least restrictive means to protect his son from harm.
We affirm as to the second and third arguments without discussion. On the first argument, we conclude that competent, substantial evidence did not support the grounds alleged under section 39.806(l)(b). However, we conclude that competent, substantial evidence supported the grounds alleged under sections 39.806(l)(c) and 39.806(l)(e)l., and that such evidence was sufficient to support the termination of parental rights.
Therefore, we affirm the termination of parental rights, but with instructions to the circuit court to amend the final judgment to indicate in its conclusions of law that the termination was based on the grounds alleged under sections 39.806(l)(c) and 39.806(l)(e)l., and not on the grounds alleged under section 39.806(l)(b).
Affirmed with instructions.
WARNER, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Revah v. Cecile Revah (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
-
Green Emerald Homes v. 21ST Mortg. Corp. (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)