C.H.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM
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.
A motion to vacate a termination of parental rights order is without merit when it presents only vague, underdeveloped suggestions of potential defenses to some grounds while failing to address others.
[1] A meritorious defense to termination of parental rights must include developed arguments addressing the statutory grounds for termination, the manifest best interests of…
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“At a minimum, a 'meritorious defense' should include any meritorious arguments regarding the grounds for termination, the manifest best interests of the child, and the least restrictive means for protecting the child.”
Standard for evaluating meritorious defenses in termination of parental rights cases
The appellant's parental rights were terminated in a dependency proceeding involving three children. The appellant subsequently filed a motion to vaca…
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 Statutory Grounds For Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2025-2387 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-DP-000020
In the Interest of B.H., A.H., and S.H., children.
C.H., Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellees.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge.
July 10, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228, 236 (Fla. 2009) (“At a minimum, a 'meritorious defense' should include any meritorious arguments regarding the grounds for termination, the manifest best interests of the child, and the least restrictive means for protecting the child.") (quoting In re A.N.D., 883 So. 2d 910, 914 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); A.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 291 So. 3d 161, 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (holding that a mother's
motion to vacate was without merit when, after her rights were terminated for nonpersonal appearance at a hearing and other reasons, she made a “vague, underdeveloped suggestion of a potential defense to one of the three separate statutory grounds for termination" and "failed to suggest the existence of any defense to the other two statutory grounds alleged by DCF.").
WOZNIAK, SMITH and PRATT, JJ., concur.
David J. Joffe, of Joffe Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Meredith K. Hall, Appellate Counsel, of Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families.
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Caitlin E. Burke, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Guardian ad Litem.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2009)
- In the Interest of A.N.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 883 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- J. B. v. Dep't of Child. & Familes, 291 So. 3d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)