D.H., MOTHER OF S.R., 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 Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination of D.H.'s parental rights to her two-year-old daughter, S.R., but struck the abandonment ground from the judgment as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The court held that because other statutory grounds for termination were supported by evidence and the termination was in the child's best interests, the judgment remained affirmed despite the error regarding abandonment.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding the abandonment ground supported by clear and convincing evidence and struck that provision from the judgment. However, the court affirmed the termination of parental rights because the trial court's termination on other statutory grounds in section 39.806 was supported by evidence, and DCF presented clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child's manifest best interests and was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.
[1] A trial court's determination that a child was abandoned must be supported by clear and convincing evidence to withstand appellate review.
[2] An order terminating parental rights may be affirmed if supported by evidence on at least one statutory ground, even if other grounds are not sufficiently proven.
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“To reverse a trial court's determination that a child was abandoned, the appellate court must find that the determination was not 'supported by clear and convincing evidence.'”
Establishes the standard of review for abandonment findings in termination of parental rights cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.H. is the mother of S.R., a two-year-old child. The Department of Children and Families sought to terminate D.H.'s parental rights. The trial court …
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 Manifest Best Interests Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
The mother, D.H., appeals the final judgment terminating her parental rights as to her two-year old daughter, S.R. Concluding that the trial court erred in finding that the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) proved by clear and convincing evidence that D.H.’s parental rights should be terminated under section 39.806(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2016), for abandoning the minor child, we strike that provision from the final judgment. See L.K. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 62 So. 3d 1241, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“ ‘To reverse a trial court’s determination that’ a child was abandoned, the appellate court must find that the determination was not ‘supported by clear and convincing evidence.’” (quoting In re E.D., 884 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))).
We nevertheless affirm the final judgment because the trial court’s termination of D.H.’s parental rights on the other statutory grounds set forth in section 39.806 as described in the judgment is supported by the evidence presented at trial. See M.D. v. State, Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 187 So.3d 1275, 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“[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 [to terminate parental rights] is affirmable.” (first alteration in original) (quoting J.E. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 126 So.3d 424, 427-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013))). Lastly, the trial court correctly concluded that DCF presented clear and convincing evidence at trial that the termination of parental rights *352was in the manifest best interests of the minor child and that it is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm. See R.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 30 So. 3d 722, 724 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (holding that an order terminating parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that there is a ground for termination under section 39.806, the termination is in the manifest best interest of the child pursuant to section 39.810, and the termination of the parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm).
Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment terminating D.H.’s parental rights to S.R., but we remand with directions for the entry of an amended final judgment striking any language from the judgment regarding section 39.806(l)(b) being one of the grounds for the termination of the parental rights.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.
COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 246 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
K.C. v. DCF (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
R.V. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- J.E., Sr. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 126 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- In the Interest of E.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 884 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- M.D. v. State, 187 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- R.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 30 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- L.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 62 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)