B.P., THE FATHER
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.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination of parental rights, applying the highly deferential standard of review requiring clear and convincing evidence and substantial competent evidence supporting at least one statutory ground under Florida Statutes section 39.806.
A termination of parental rights decision is affirmed when competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion on at least one statutory ground for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes, reviewed under a highly deferential standard.
[1] The standard of review for termination of parental rights findings of clear and convincing evidence is highly deferential and will not be overturned unless clearly errone…
[2] An appellate court reviews evidence in a neutral manner rather than in a light most favorable to the parent to assess whether competent, substantial evidence supports the…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB.P., the father, appealed a termination of parental rights decision from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County.…
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 Appellate Deference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See D.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 930 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The standard of review on a termination of parental rights case is ‘highly deferential.’ That is, ‘[a] 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’” (quoting N.L. v. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)); J.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 326 So. 3d 76, 78-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (noting that an appellate court will not review the evidence in a light most favorable to the parent, but in a neutral manner to assess whether the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion; so long as the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling on one of the statutory grounds alleged as a basis for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes, a reviewing court will affirm that ruling). See also Lecorps v. Star Lakes Ass’n, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1136 at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2022) (“It is axiomatic that the trial court retains inherent authority to reconsider any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or another order terminating the action”) (citing Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998)); C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 257 So. 3d 1078, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (observing that “the circumstances surrounding the creation of the case plan may extend 2 to problems identified subsequent to the children's removal, and not exclusively those identified contemporaneous to removal.”)
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Art Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1998)
- C.B. v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 257 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)