M.E., MOTHER OF A.A. AND W.A., II, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
The First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order terminating a mother's parental rights, finding that the evidence presented did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required for such terminations. The court noted significant gaps in the Department's proof, including the absence of testimony from treating mental health professionals, and found that the trial court's own observations about deficient evidence undermined its termination order.
The termination order was not supported by competent, substantial evidence and was therefore reversed and remanded. The trial court's own concerns about gaps in the Department's proof and the deficiencies in the professional testimony presented established that the court was not convinced without hesitancy that the evidence warranted termination of parental rights.
[1] The termination of parental rights requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.
[2] Clear and convincing evidence must be credible, with clear and unconfused witness memories, and sufficient in weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.
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 elements necessary to support the termination of parental rights must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”
Establishes the controlling standard of proof for parental rights termination cases in Florida
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 terminated appellant M.E.'s parental rights based primarily on evidence that she exhibited irrational behavior at times. The Departmen…
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 Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, M.E., challenges an order terminating her parental rights. Concluding that the trial court’s determination is *269not supported by competent, substantial evidence, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.
In the termination order, the court found the evidence troubling for “the gaps in proof’ which the Department of Children and Families (“Department”) might have produced but did not. It noted that the Department produced no evidence or records from any mental health professional treating appellant. It found some “obvious” errors in the testimony of the “only professional” who testified and a “certain vagueness even on subjects where [the professional] appeared to be reasonably accurate.” Nevertheless, the court terminated appellant’s parental rights because of evidence that appellant exhibited irrational behavior at times. In so ruling, the court noted that it would have been more comfortable reaching its conclusion if provided with actual testimony from treating physicians or psychologists. This appeal followed.
The elements necessary to support the termination of parental rights must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 953 So.2d 547, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Clear and convincing evidence has been defined as an:
intermediate level of proof [that] entails both a qualitative and quantitative standard. The evidence must be credible; the memories of the witnesses must be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weight to convince the trier of fact without hesitancy.
In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So.2d 961, 967 (Fla.1995) (citation omitted). A finding that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless it lacks evidentiary support or is clearly erroneous. T.S. ex rel. D.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 969 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Such a determination is reviewed on appeal under the competent, substantial evidence standard. Id.
It is apparent from the order on appeal that the trial court was very concerned about the lack of evidence introduced by the Department. With respect to the evidence that was introduced, the court found obvious errors and a certain vagueness in the testimony of the “only professional” who testified. The court’s own observations regarding the lack of evidence establish that it was not convinced without hesitancy that the evidence warranted the termination of appellant’s parental rights. As a result, we are unable to say that competent, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that the evidence was clear and convincing.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the order and REMAND for further proceedings.
HAWKES, C.J., WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re the Adoption OF Baby E.A.W. G.W.B. v. J.S.W., 658 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1995)
- T.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 969 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Huff v. State, 953 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Bacon v. State, 953 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)