J.C., THE FATHER
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.
Father challenged the termination of his parental rights under Florida Statute § 39.806(1)(f), which permits termination based on egregious abuse of a sibling. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination, holding that the statute survives strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to protect children.
The statute § 39.806(1)(f) is constitutional as it survives strict scrutiny by promoting the compelling government interest of protecting children and narrowly applies only to situations involving egregious conduct. Egregious abuse directed at one sibling is sufficient to support termination of parental rights to another sibling.
“We therefore conclude that § 39.806(1)(f) survives strict scrutiny because it promotes the compelling government interest of protecting children and it narrowly applies in situations where there is egregious conduct.”
Establishes that the statute meets constitutional requirements under strict scrutiny review
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed facts about the underlying abuse or family circumstances. The case involves termination of parental rights under…
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 As-Applied Constitutional Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 39.806(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2024); S.M.O. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 357 So. 3d 773, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“We therefore conclude that § 39.806(1)(f) survives strict scrutiny because it promotes the compelling government interest of protecting children and it narrowly applies in situations where there is egregious conduct.”); T.P. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 935 So. 2d 621, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Under section 39.806(1)(f), egregious abuse directed at one sibling is sufficient, without more, to support termination of parental rights to another sibling.”); B.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 864 So. 2d 486, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that an as-applied constitutional challenge “must first have been raised at the trial level”); Dailey v. State, 965 So. 2d 38, 47 (Fla. 2007) (“When claims are listed in the headings of briefs but no argument is provided, those claims will be barred as insufficiently argued.”); Cargile-Schrage v. Schrage, 908 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion where the appellant failed to prove a “compelling reason” showing that “no judge in his right mind would have denied the continuance”); Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 389 So. 3d 705, 708 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (“It is not a court’s role to scour the record for facts or arguments that a party could have raised in the trial court or on appeal.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 864 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- T.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 935 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Dailey v. State, 965 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2007)
- Flaherty v. Flaherty, 389 So. 3d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- H.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 352 So. 3d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)