K.C., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

Fla. 4th DCA | 2018-11-28
No. 18-2345
Motz, Diaz, Thacker
259 So. 3d 880 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2018)

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.

Synopsis

The court affirmed the trial court's termination of appellant's parental rights, finding competent substantial evidence supported the decision. However, the court remanded to remove one unsupported ground for termination that violated the appellant's due process rights, while upholding termination under two other statutory grounds.


Holding

The court affirmed the termination of parental rights based on sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(f), which were supported by competent substantial evidence. However, the court remanded to remove the determination regarding section 39.806(1)(g) because terminating parental rights on a ground not noticed or tried would violate the parent's due process rights.


Headnotes

[1] Termination of parental rights may be affirmed on appeal where clear and convincing evidence supports termination under any statutory ground that was properly noticed and…

[2] A trial court violates a parent's due process rights by terminating parental rights on a statutory ground that was dismissed by the petitioning agency and not tried, even…

Previewing 2 of 2 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

Key Quotes

“It would be a violation of appellant's due process rights of notice and a fair hearing to terminate her parental rights based on a ground which was not noticed or tried by implied consent.”

Court's reasoning for requiring removal of section 39.806(1)(g) from the final judgment despite affirming termination on other grounds.

Facts & Procedural History

A trial court terminated a mother's parental rights to her child. The Department of Children and Families (DCF) initially pursued termination under 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.


Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM. We affirm the final judgment terminating appellant’s parental rights to her child, as competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings. See B.K. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 166 So. 3d 866, 872-73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (noting that the review of a trial court’s findings in a termination proceeding is highly deferential, and a trial court’s findings carry a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support). We remand, however, to correct the final judgment by removing the court’s conclusion of law that clear and convincing evidence supported termination based upon section 39.806(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The parties all agree that the Department of Children and Families dismissed this ground as a basis for termination, which the trial court noted at the final hearing but nevertheless included it in its final judgment. It would be a violation of appellant’s due process rights of notice and a fair hearing to terminate her parental rights based on a ground which was not noticed or tried by implied consent. See R.S. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 872 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). However, the trial court also found that clear and convincing evidence supported termination pursuant to sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Where the trial court’s ruling on any ground for termination is supported by competent substantial evidence, the trial court’s decision should be upheld. See J.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 126 So. 3d 424, 427-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Affirmed and remanded with directions. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw