E.M., THE FATHER AND B.O., 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.
The Fourth District affirmed the termination of parental rights for both parents based on the father's incarceration and harm to the child, but remanded to correct a scrivener's error clarifying the grounds for termination.
The trial court properly terminated parental rights based on the father's incarceration constituting a significant portion of the child's minority and the harm to the child from continuing the parental relationship.
[1] A judgment terminating parental rights must be clarified to specify only those statutory grounds actually relied upon by the trial court, not all grounds alleged in the p…
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 intelligenceThe Department of Children and Families petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the father and mother, asserting multiple grounds for terminati…
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 and the mother appeal the order terminating their parental rights. Appellate counsel for the mother moved to withdraw, asserting the absence of any issue of merit. The mother declined to retain replacement counsel or file an initial brief. Accordingly, we affirm as to the mother. We also affirm as to the father. However, we remand for the correction of a scrivener’s error that applies to both the mother and the father.
In its petition for termination of parental rights, the Department of Children and Families asserted multiple grounds for termination of parental rights, but the trial court ultimately relied on only two grounds — that the father “is an incarcerated parent and the time period for which the father is expected to be incarcerated will constitute a significant portion of the child’s minority,” and “continuing the parental relationship with the father would be harmful to the minor child.” See § 39.806(l)(d)l., 8., Fla. Stat. (2014). On appeal, the father makes numerous arguments pertaining to section 39.806(l)(d)l. We find no merit to the issues raised by the father and affirm the termination of parental rights. However, we remand for the trial court to correct a scrivener’s error. The judgment contains language indicating that termination was based on all the grounds alleged in the petition. Because the ground of abandonment was withdrawn and it is apparent that termination was not based on abandonment, the judgment should clarify that termination is based only on subsections 39.806(1)(d) 1. and 3.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
WARNER and GERBER, JJ., concur.