F.A.F., APPELLANT,
v.
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.
F.A.F. appeals a final order terminating his parental rights to two children. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's findings of neglect and abandonment.
The trial court's termination of F.A.F.'s parental rights was affirmed as supported by substantial competent evidence. The evidence established that the parents' behavior threatened the children's life, safety, and mental and emotional health, and that F.A.F. engaged in egregious conduct including ongoing drug involvement, probation violations, and abandonment of the children.
[1] A trial court's order terminating parental rights will be affirmed if supported by substantial competent evidence.
[2] Failure to fulfill conditions of a case plan, including parenting classes, substance abuse programs, and psychiatric evaluations, can support termination of parental righ…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 trial court correctly found that DCF established that the parents' behavior at home threatened the life, safety, well-being and the mental and emotional health of the children, irrespective of provision of services.”
Establishes the legal standard for termination based on threat to children's safety and welfare
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceF.A.F. is the father of two children (ages 14 and 6). After a termination petition was filed, F.A.F. was granted supervised visits but never participa…
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 Egregious Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
F.A.F. appeals from a final order terminating his parental rights. We affirm.
F.A.F. is the father of two children, now fourteen and six years of age. Although F.A.F. was granted supervised visits with the children after the petition for termination was filed, those visits apparently never took place, and several months later the trial court ordered the Department of Children and Families [DCF] to conduct a diligent search for the father. Once F.A.F. was located, DCF filed a case plan which included various conditions for him to fulfill, including parenting classes, substance abuse and domestic violence programs, psychiatric evaluation, and family counseling.1 FAF failed to fulfill these conditions, refused to take drug tests, failed to report to his probation officer, changed his residence without consent and was unable to be found, and failed to report to the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime [TASC] program. As a result, the court revoked his probation. During the course of termination proceedings, the older child was the subject of a pickup order. The appointed psychologist reported that the child had a history of sexual abuse, was depressed and dealing with issues of abandonment and rejection. The child told the doctor that when she was with her parents, her parents routinely had violent arguments with physical abuse. The termination petition was subsequently granted based on the father’s “neglect and abandonment since 1998.”
The trial court correctly found that DCF established that the parents’ behavior at home threatened the life, safety, well-being and the mental and emotional health of the children, irrespective of provision of services. DCF established that the parents engaged in egregious conduct which threatened the children, and that the parents knowingly failed to prevent such conduct. The evidence showed that F.A.F. engaged in ongoing criminal involvement with drugs, violated his California parole and his Florida probation, and at the time of the hearing was in federal immigration custody. In the more than two years between the children’s removal from his custody and the trial, F.A.F. failed to contact DCF to ask about his children; he failed to see his son, and failed to request visitation or telephone contact.
The final order terminating F.A.F.’s parental rights is supported by substantial competent evidence, therefore it is affirmed.
. F.A.F. has an ongoing history of drug abuse and sale and was incarcerated on several occasions, including at the time of the termination hearing. F.A.F. was present at the termination hearing via telephone.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
T.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 935 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…e evidence supporting a termination of parental rights is whether the trial court’s order is supported by substantial competent evidence. See In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla.1995); F.A.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 804 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). We recognize “[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child.” Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565, 570 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, to protect t…
-
T.V. v. Dep't. OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 905 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…rial court’s findings and conclusions. The standard of review in a case where the trial court terminates parental rights is whether the judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence. See F.A.F. v. Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 804 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). To justify a termination of parental rights, the department has the burden of proof to present clear and convincing evidence that a parent has abused, neglected or abandoned a child, or that the child is at substantial risk of fu…
-
M.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 867 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…substantially comply [with the case plan] for a period of 12 months after an adjudication of the child as a dependent ... constitutes evidence of continuing abuse, neglect, or abandonment....” In F.A.F. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 804 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), we held that a judgment will be affirmed where substantial, competent evidence supports an order terminating parental rights. The record here shows that M.M. has authored her own undoing. When given two opportunities to reunite…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence