D.B., FATHER OF D.B., A CHILD, 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 concurring judge wrote to highlight two concerns: the trial court's failure to explicitly mention consideration of the child custody evaluator's testimony and the potential for disruption of visitation schedules for the noncustodial parent.
The court affirmed the trial court's award of primary residential responsibility to the Mother. The concurring opinion did not dissent but raised concerns about the trial court's process and future visitation.
The case involved an appeal concerning child custody and visitation. The trial court had awarded primary residential responsibility to the Mother. The…
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.
PER CURIAM.
We hold that the evidence in this case clearly supports the trial judge’s determination that D.B., the father of D.B., abandoned his child and that his parental rights were properly terminated. See C.A.H. v. Department of Children & Families, 830 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.