N.M. AND M.M., APPELLANTS,
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.
The court held that the trial judge's evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible error, and affirmed the termination of parental rights.
The parents' parental rights were terminated based on the father's sexual abuse of a sibling and the mother's failure to protect other children. The p…
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 Failure To Protect cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment terminating the parental rights of both the mother and the father to three female children, based essentially on sexual abuse of a sibling of the children in question by the father and the mother’s failure to appropriately protect the other children from the dangers he presented. § 39.806(l)(f), (g), Fla. Stat. (2012).1 See N.R.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 959 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). See generally In re Z.C. (1), *100688 So.3d 977, 989-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (Altenbernd, J., concurring).
The thrust of the parents’ contentions on appeal is that, although the record supports the trial judge’s resolution of the disputed issue of whether the abuse occurred, the result was tainted by several allegedly erroneous rulings in the admission and rejection of evidence at the trial. We have carefully examined each of the arguments presented and find that none of them present reversible error: the rulings complained of did not constitute an abuse of discretion, were harmless, or both. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1967); Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla.2003) (“A trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2003)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. B.B. and T.B., 824 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- In the Interest of Z.C.(1) & Z.C.(2) v. K.D. and Z.H., 88 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- N.R.R. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & The Guardian Ad Litem Program, 959 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)