R.T., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
R.T. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his eight-year-old daughter based on abandonment. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination, finding that the trial court's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence and that termination was in the child's best interests, particularly to maintain her placement with her three siblings in a pre-adoptive home.
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding that the trial court's findings were supported by competent substantial evidence. Termination was appropriate because R.T. cannot provide the permanency the child desperately needs, and it is in the child's best interests to be raised with her siblings and achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family.
[1] Termination of parental rights may be based on abandonment when a parent is unable to care for, support, and father their child.
[2] A trial court's finding that termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect a child and is in the child's best interests is entitled to affirman…
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“Termination of R.T.'s parental rights was based on abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court's finding that termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is 'in desperate need of permanency' that R.T. cannot provide.”
Establishes the statutory basis for termination and the trial court's principal findings regarding the child's need for permanency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.T.'s daughter, R.A.T., was eight years old when the termination judgment was entered. The child and her three half-siblings (who share the same moth…
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 Abandonment cases and more on FLexlaw
R.T. (“the father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his daughter, R.A.T. (“the child”), who was eight years old when the final judgment for termination of parental rights was entered on February 2, 2015. Termination of R.T.’s parental rights was based on *578abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court’s finding that termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is “in desperate need of permanency” that R.T. cannot provide.
The child and her three siblings, who share the same mother but have different fathers, have been living together in a pre-adoptive home for approximately two years, and their caregiver wishes to adopt all four siblings. The mother’s parental rights to the child and her three siblings have been terminated, and each of the respective fathers’ parental rights to the child’s three siblings also have been terminated. Although R.T. has maintained telephone contact with the child, the record supports the trial court’s findings that R.T. is unable to care for, support, and father his child; R.T. has no suitable family members to care for the child; and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised with her siblings, with whom she has bonded, and to achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family that wishes to adopt all four siblings and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the child throughout the pendency of this case. Because the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. T.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Sews., 905 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Affirmed.