D.M., MOTHER OF J.C.D. AND A.W.D., CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
M.D., FATHER, 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.
D.M. appealed the trial court's denial of her petition to terminate the parental rights of M.D., the biological father of their two children, based on his 97-month incarceration and subsequent sex offender probation. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding competent, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that M.D. had not abandoned his children.
The trial court did not err in denying the petition to terminate parental rights. Although the trial court failed to include written findings as required by statute, this constituted harmless error because competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that M.D. had not abandoned his children.
[1] A trial court's failure to make specific findings of fact required by statute in a parental rights termination proceeding may constitute harmless error if the absence of…
[2] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's conclusion in a parental rights termination case when competent, substantial evidence supports the conclusion.
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“the failure to make the required findings can constitute harmless error when, as here, our review is not hampered by their absence”
Establishes the standard for reviewing the trial court's failure to include required statutory findings of fact in parental termination cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.D. is the biological father of two children with D.M. M.D. was incarcerated for 97 months followed by ten years of sex offender probation. D.M. soug…
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 Stepparent Adoption cases and more on FLexlaw
D.M. appeals a final order denying her petition to terminate the parental rights of M.D., the biological father of their two children, in conjunction with a proceeding for a stepparent adoption under chapter 63, Florida Statutes (2015). D.M. argues that the trial court erred in failing to set forth specific findings of fact to support its conclusion that M.D. had not abandoned his children. She also contends that competent, substantial evidence supports terminating M.D.'s parental rights. We affirm.
D.M.'s petition sought to terminate M.D.'s parental rights based on his ninety-seven-month term of incarceration in prison followed by ten years of sex offender *714probation. D.M. alleged that M.D.'s term of incarceration constituted a significant portion of the children's minority. Alternatively, she contended that continuing the parental relationship with M.D. would be harmful to the children and, for this reason, termination of M.D.'s parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. See § 63.089(4)(b)1. & 3., Fla. Stat. (2015).
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied D.M.'s petition.1 As D.M. correctly observes, the trial court's order does not include written findings addressing the criteria set forth in section 63.089(4), as required by section 63.089(5). However, the failure to make the required findings can constitute harmless error when, as here, our review is not hampered by their absence. See Williams v. Williams, 923 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). After considering all the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court concluded that M.D. had not abandoned his children. The trial court's order comes to this Court with a presumption of correctness. Sunset Realty Corp. v. McDaniel, 165 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). When, as here, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion, it will be affirmed. See Bertman v. Solomon, 166 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). We cannot reweigh the evidence. Disston v. Hanson, 116 So.3d 612, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
AFFIRMED.
COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.M. v. M.D., 272 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 2019)…PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in D.M. v. M.D. , 247 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this review…1 / 2
-
D.M. v. M.D., 272 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 2019)…PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in D.M. v. M.D., 247 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), based on express and direct conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. After further consideration, we conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby discharge jurisdiction and dismiss this revi…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Williams, 923 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Sunset Realty Corp. v. Dawson McDANIEL, 165 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bertman v. Solomon, 166 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Davis v. State, 116 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Disston v. Shelbey Hanson, 116 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)