A.P.,SR., FATHER OF A.P.,JR. AND A.F.-P., MINOR CHILDREN
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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.
An appellant challenged the termination of his parental rights under Florida Statute section 39.806(1)(f), arguing the statute was unconstitutional because a 2014 amendment eliminated the proof-of-nexus requirement. The court affirmed the termination order without reaching the constitutional challenge, finding the trial court properly terminated rights under section 39.806(1)(c).
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights without addressing the constitutional challenge to section 39.806(1)(f), finding that the trial court properly terminated rights under the alternative ground of section 39.806(1)(c).
[1] Courts must refrain from reaching constitutional questions if the case can be resolved on non-constitutional grounds.
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 intelligenceThe appellant's parental rights were terminated by the trial court under Florida's child welfare statute. The appellant contested the termination on b…
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 Manifest Best Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
section 39.806(1)(f)2 is unconstitutional because the Legislature eliminated the proof-of-nexus requirement in a 2014 amendment, and that termination was not in the children’s manifest best interests. We find no merit in Appellant’s challenge to the trial court’s application of section 39.806(1)(c) in terminating his rights or in his best interests argument. Given such, we decline to address Appellant’s constitutional challenge to section 39.806(1)(f). See In re Holder, 945 So. 2d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 2006) (explaining that courts are to avoid considering a constitutional question when the case can be decided on non-constitutional grounds); Overstreet v. Overstreet, 244 So. 3d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The law requires us to refrain from reaching constitutional questions if we can resolve the case on other grounds.”); J.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 198 So. 3d 706, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“As a result of our conclusion as to this ground [section 39.806(1)(c)], we do not need to determine whether termination was authorized under section 39.806(1)(f).”).
Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Appellant’s parental rights.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur. the child irrespective of the provision of services.” § 39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2017).
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Susan Barber, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, and Crystal M. Frusciante, Sunrise, for Appellant. Ward L. Metzger of Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Inquiry Concerning A Judge, 945 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2006)
- In the Interest of B.F.(1) v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian ad Litem Program, 198 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Marcy Nicole Overstreet v. Overstreet, 244 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)