S.A., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.
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 trial court's termination of parental rights was affirmed where evidence supported findings of non-compliance with the case plan and that termination was the least restrictive means to protect the child.
[1] In a parental rights termination case, evidence supporting findings of non-compliance with a case plan and that termination is the least restrictive means to protect a ch…
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 intelligenceS.A., the mother, appealed a trial court order terminating her parental rights to A.M.A. The trial court found that S.A. had not substantially complie…
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 Right To Counsel In Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 20, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2407
Lower Tribunal No. 17-15662 TPB D001
S.A., the Mother, Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yery Marrero, Judge.
S. A., the Mother, in proper person.
Karla Perkins, B.C.S., for appellee Department of Children & Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The evidence admitted at trial supports the trial court's findings that S.A. has not substantially complied with the case plan and that termination of S.A.'s parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect A.M.A. from harm. Furthermore, the record expressly contradicts S.A.'s claims that she was deprived of the right to participate in the trial and was not represented by counsel at trial. Accordingly, we affirm. See generally G.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 337 So. 3d 446, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
Affirmed.
2