Z.R., THE MOTHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 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.
Florida appellate court reversed termination of mother's parental rights because the trial court failed to address statutory factors under section 39.811(6) regarding whether both parents' rights must be terminated together.
A trial court must address the factors in section 39.811(6), Florida Statutes, before terminating one parent's rights without terminating the other parent's rights.
[1] A trial court must address the statutory factors in section 39.811(6), Florida Statutes, before terminating one parent's parental rights without also terminating the othe…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“We cannot make a decision at this time regarding the requirements of section 39.811(6) and do not mandate any specific decision by the trial judge. We do not reverse the trial court's determination that the Department established grounds for the termination of the Mother's rights. We merely reverse that termination so that the trial court can make a proper decision under section 39.811(6) at a later point in these proceedings.”
The court explained its approach to reversal, clarifying that it was not rejecting the finding of grounds for termination but requiring proper application of statutory factors on remand.
The Department of Children and Families sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother to her five children. The trial court found grounds for …
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 Adoption Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Z.R., the mother, appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her five children. While the record supports the trial court’s determination that the Department had established grounds for the termination of the mother’s rights, the record does not reflect whether the fathers’ parental rights have been terminated. As the Department of Children and Families and the Guardian Ad Litem concede, the court’s order also does not discuss the factors in section 39.811(6), Florida Statutes, which limit the court’s power to terminate the rights of one parent without terminating the rights of the other parent. Given this absence, and the problem of sending the children for adoption in this circumstance, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See In re V.M., 893 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“We cannot make a decision at this time regarding the requirements of section 39.811(6) and do not mandate any specific decision by the trial judge. We do not reverse the trial court’s determination that the Department established grounds for the termination of the Mother’s rights. We merely reverse that termination so that the trial court can make a proper decision under section 39.811(6) at a later point in these proceedings.”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, reversing the order terminating the mother’s parental rights because the record does not reflect whether the fathers’ parental rights have been terminated, and write only to note apparent contradictory findings on the face of the trial court’s judgment. Although the trial court found that adoption is in the children’s manifest best interest based, in part, on the children’s *893continued exposure to incidents of domestic violence by Mr. Marquez, in the first paragraph of page 12 of the judgment, the trial court states: “At this time, the Court is working towards reunification of all the children with Yosvany Marquez Diaz, the father of four of the children.” Surely, both statements cannot be true.
SHEPHERD, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, reversing the order terminating the mother’s parental rights because the record does not reflect whether the fathers’ parental rights have been terminated, and write only to note apparent contradictory findings on the face of the trial court’s judgment. Although the trial court found that adoption is in the children’s manifest best interest based, in part, on the children’s continued exposure to incidents of domestic violence by Mr. Marquez, in the first paragraph of page 12 of the judgment, the trial court states: “At this time, the Court is working towards reunification of all the children with Yosvany Marquez Diaz, the father of four of the children.” Surely, both statements cannot be true.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of V.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 893 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)