C.W., SR., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of father's parental rights based on evidence of neglect, failure to cooperate with case plans, and conduct threatening the children's well-being.
A father's parental rights may be terminated when he permits neglect and detrimental conditions, fails to cooperate substantially with case plans, and does not make efforts to comply with requirements even while understanding them.
[1] A parent's parental rights may be terminated under Fla. …
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 intelligenceThe father permitted neglect and detrimental conditions affecting his children, failed to cooperate with case plans during periods when not incarcerat…
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 Clear And Convincing Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm, an order terminating this father’s parental rights. This court has previously affirmed the order terminating the mother’s parental rights. S.S. v. Florida Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 698 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
We find ample support in the record to reflect periods where the father permitted neglect and detrimental conditions thereby engaging in conduct that threatens the life or well being of the children. See § 39.464(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995). The record further reflects that Appellant failed to cooperate substantially with case plans during periods that he was not incarcerated and in fact refused to cooperate with necessary service providers. See § 39.464(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995). Finally, there is competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that while incarcerated, Appellant did not make efforts to comply with the plan even though he understood what was required. Compare In Interest of G.R.S., 647 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
In sum, the evidence was sufficient to allow the trial court to conclude by clear and convincing proof that irrespective of services, the father engaged in conduct threatening the lives and well being of the children, and that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Appellant’s parental rights.
STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re The Interest of G.R.S. v. State, 647 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)