K.H., FATHER OF H.H., H.H., MINOR CHILDREN
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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.
Parental rights may be terminated when the Department presents clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for termination and clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child.
[1] Parental rights may be terminated pursuant to section 39.806(1)(e) when a parent fails to comply substantially with a case plan for a period of 12 months after a child is…
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 intelligence“We are obliged to affirm the termination of parental rights if [the Department] has met its burden to present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating parental rights, along with clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”
Standard for reviewing termination of parental rights decisions
K.H., the father of minor children H.H., appealed a circuit court judgment terminating his parental rights. The Department of Children and Families so…
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 Case Plan Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2025-1718
K. H., FATHER OF H.H., H.H.,
MINOR CHILDREN, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. Timothy Allen Register, Judge.
June 4, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Given our review of the record and the arguments of the Appellant and counsel, we find that Appellant has not demonstrated a basis on which to overturn the lower court's final judgment. N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Services, 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“We are obliged to affirm the termination of parental rights if [the Department] has met its burden to present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating parental rights, along with clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child."). As such, we affirm. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.265(b) & 8.270(b); see also In re T.D., 924 So. 2d 827, 831 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2005) (“Neither B.T., nor any of the other post-Berg- Perlow decisions of this court, requires reversal solely on the ground that a trial court has adopted a judgment prepared by one of the parties.”); M.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 765 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“It is undisputed that parental rights may be terminated pursuant to section 39.806(1)(e) if a parent fails to comply substantially with a case plan for a period of 12 months after a child is adjudicated dependent.").
ROBERTS, NORDBY, and NEFF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of T.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 924 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)