C.B., MOTHER OF R.N., A CHILD, 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.
The court affirmed termination of parental rights under section 39.806(1)(e) but reversed the abandonment finding under sections 39.01(1) and 39.806(1)(b) because the mother regularly visited the child and provided support.
Parental rights may be terminated under section 39.806(1)(e) even where the mother regularly visited and provided items to the child, but the abandonment ground under sections 39.01(1) and 39.806(1)(b) cannot stand.
[1] An appellate court will affirm termination of parental rights if any theory or principle of law supports the trial court's judgment, even if the specific ground cited is…
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.B., the mother of R.N., had her parental rights terminated. The record showed that except for one month, C.B. regularly visited the child, provided …
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 Abandonment Of Child cases and more on FLexlaw
C.B., mother of R.N., appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights as to R.N. We affirm the order of termination based on section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2016). See C.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 178 So.3d 937, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (recognizing that an appellate court will affirm the order terminating parental rights if “upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there is any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court’s judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.” (quoting D.G. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 77 So.3d 201, 206-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))). However, because the record reflects that, absent a period of one month, C.B. regularly visited with the child, provided some *529toys and clothing items for the child, and the child appeared happy to see C.B. during the scheduled visits, we reverse as to the finding of abandonment under sections 39.01(1) and 39.806(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), and remand for modification of the order. See J.L. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 143 So.3d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). (citing S.L. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 120 So.3d 75, 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also A.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 162 So.3d 335, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citing § 39.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2014)).
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur. -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 260 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- D.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 77 So. 3d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- S.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 120 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- A.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 162 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- C.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 178 So. 3d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- J.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 143 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Mathieu Joseph v. Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 143 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)