P.J., MOTHER OF A.H., J.H., ETC., CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to five children based on a delay in entering an amended TPR order over 25 months after the hearing. The appellate court affirms the termination, holding that the trial court's amended order complying with statutory requirements is sufficient and the delay does not warrant a new hearing.
The amended TPR order complies with statutory requirements, and the trial court's findings of egregious conduct justify termination. The appellate court's prior remand did not contemplate granting a new hearing, and the delay does not entitle the mother to one.
[1] A trial court's amended termination of parental rights order entered on remand, which complies with statutory requirements and is supported by findings of egregious condu…
[2] A prior appellate decision remanding a termination of parental rights case solely for the entry of a compliant order does not contemplate a new hearing for the parent.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Dr. Tilelli testified that the child had injuries and bruises that were too numerous to count and that they represented hundreds of blows. Dr. Tilelli testified, that he had never examined a child that was alive that had as many injuries as [J.H.].”
Establishes the severity of physical abuse inflicted on the child, demonstrating egregious conduct warranting termination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court held a TPR hearing on November 1, 1999, and entered a termination order on November 3, 1999. A pediatrician testified that one child h…
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
PLEUS, J.
The mother appeals her termination of parental rights (“TPR”) as to her minor children. She argues that because the amended TPR order was entered over 25 months after the TPR hearing, the trial court’s factual findings are stale, her circumstances have changed and she should be awarded a new TPR hearing. We disagree and affirm.
The trial court held a TPR hearing on November 1, 1999, and entered an order terminating the mother’s parental rights to her five children on November 3, 1999. The mother appealed. We issued our opinion on March 30, 2001, P.J. v. Department of Children and Families, 783 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In that opinion, we noted that “reversal was not warranted,” but we remanded the cause for the trial court to “enter a termination order which complies with the statute.” Id.
On remand, the trial court entered an amended TPR order on December 7, 2001. The amended order, in pertinent part, states: Dr. John Arthur Tilelli testified that he examined [J.H.] on July 13, 1998, and that at the time, the child was in a very poor physical state of health. .. He was. underweight for age and looked like he .had poor nutrition. He had numerous physical injuries both internal and external all abusive in nature. Dr. Tilelli testified that the child had injuries and bruises that were too numerous to count and that they represented hundreds of blows. Dr. Tilelli testified, that he had never examined a child that was alive that had as many injuries as [J.H.],
The mother, [P. J.], testified that she had been frustrated with the child, [J.H.], and did him like she did because he was causing her problems. The mother admitted causing the child much harm and much damage. The mother admitted beating the child because he had toilet training problems and' that she could have killed him. The mother also admitted that by not seeking medical attention for the child her inflicted injuries could have killed the child.
The mother has been involved with the Department since 1994 and other than the child [J.H.], has not had custody of her children since 1994.
We find the amended order complies with the statute and the mother’s argument to be without merit. Our prior opinion in this case did not contemplate giving the mother a new hearing. See P.J., 783 So. 2d at 1149-1150. On remand, the trial court’s findings of egregious conduct speak for themselves and justify the termination order entered.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Families & C.K., 326 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…new hearing to be held? The Fifth District rejected the argument that an amended TPR order entered 25 months after the original TPR hearing contained “stale” factual findings that required a new hearing in P.J. v. Department of Children & Families, 821 So. 2d 442, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Much like here, the amended TPR order in P.J. was necessitated by a remand from the appellate court in a prior appeal. The point of P.J. is that a two-year delay is not a basis for a new evidentiary hearing where the existi…
-
Guardian ad Litem Program v. Dep't of Child. & Families & C.K. (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…new hearing to be held? The Fifth District rejected the argument that an amended TPR order entered 25 months after the original TPR hearing contained “stale” factual findings that required a new hearing in P.J. v. Department of Children & Families, 821 So. 2d 442, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Much like here, the amended TPR order in P.J. was necessitated by a remand from the appellate court in a prior appeal. The point of P.J. is that a two-year delay is not a basis for a new evidentiary hearing where the existi…
Authorities Cited
- P.J. as Parent of B.H. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 783 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)