S.C., FATHER OF H.L.S., A MINOR CHILD
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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's termination of a parent's parental rights based on abandonment and failure to maintain a substantial relationship with the child. The parent had failed to engage meaningfully in court-ordered case plan tasks over twenty months and four review hearings following the child's removal from the home.
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding clear and convincing evidence of two statutory grounds for termination: abandonment evidenced by marginal, token visitation efforts and failure to make significant contributions to the child's care and maintenance, and failure to establish or maintain a substantial and positive relationship with the child. The court also found termination was in the manifest best interests of the child under the eleven-factor statutory test.
[1] In termination of parental rights cases, findings of clear and convincing evidence enjoy a presumption of correctness on appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly…
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 intelligenceA child was removed from the appellant's home and placed in foster care. Over the subsequent twenty months and four review hearings, the appellant mad…
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 Involuntary Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
until after the Department filed a petition for involuntary termination of parental rights—thirteen months after the child had been removed and sheltered. Appellant repeatedly failed to follow through with referrals for domestic violence intervention and infant mental health counseling. While Appellant attempted to engage in some case tasks shortly before the trial, twenty months and four review hearings had passed since the child’s removal during which Appellant never substantially engaged in his case plan. Appellant also provided no financial support for the child when in the care of foster parents. The trial court found Appellant’s inconsistent visitation demonstrated a marginal effort that was incidental or token, as described by the statutory definition for abandonment. See § 39.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). Additionally, the court found Appellant did not make a “significant contribution to the child’s care and maintenance,” nor did he “establish or maintain a substantial and positive relationship” with the child. Id. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence (1) there was sufficient proof of two statutory grounds for termination, (2) termination was in the manifest best interests of the child, and (3) termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child. The court completed a detailed manifest best interests analysis using the eleven-factor test required by section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2019). After making these findings, the court granted the petition for involuntary termination of Appellant’s parental rights. Our standard of review in termination of parental rights cases is highly deferential. A trial court’s “finding that evidence is clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support.” N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Here, the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and are not otherwise clearly erroneous.
AFFIRMED. LEWIS, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Robert C. Allen, Pensacola, and Jonathan Mills, Orlando, for Appellant. Sarah J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Children and Families; Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Senior Attorney, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee, and Morgan Lyle Weinstein of Weinstein Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.