D.M., FATHER OF K.M. AND K.M., 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 under section 39.806(1)(e)(1) when a parent fails to substantially comply with a case plan and the circumstances necessitating the plan have not been significantly remedied, as established by clear and convincing evidence.
[1] A trial court's determination that evidence is clear and convincing in a parental rights termination proceeding will not be overturned on appeal unless it may be said as…
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“the circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan have been significantly remedied to the extent that the well-being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child's remaining with or being returned to the child's parent”
Definition of substantial compliance under section 39.01(84), Fla. Stat.
D.M.'s children were removed from his custody due to lack of stable housing; he relied on the children's mother for housing but she was sheltered from…
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 Substantial Compliance With Case Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
D.M. appeals a trial court order terminating his parental rights. The basis for the termination was section 39.806(1)(e)(1), failure to substantially comply with his case plan. Substantial compliance is obtained when “the circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan have been significantly remedied to the extent that the well-being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child’s remaining with or being returned to the child's parent.” § 39.01(84), Fla. Stat. D.M.’s children were taken from him because he lacked stable housing. He relied on the children’s mother for housing, but they
were sheltered from her due to abuse. D.M.’s children had been in foster care for four years at the time of the termination hearing. And he still had not provided housing for them. D.M. also had a history of domestic violence and was facing an attempted homicide charge for chasing down a person in the road and firing a gun multiple times in their direction. These allegations were supported by testimony at the termination hearing. To terminate a person’s parental rights, the elements required for termination must be established by clear and convincing evidence. § 39.809(1), Fla. Stat. The trial court determined the elements of section 39.806(1)(e)(1) were met by clear and convincing evidence because “the circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan ha[d] [not] been significantly remedied.” § 39.01(84), Fla. Stat. “[A] trial court’s determination that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless it may be said as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing.” In Interest of D.J.S., 563 So. 2d 655, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We cannot say that here. AFFIRMED. KELSEY, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- IN the Interest OF D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)