C.D.M. v. K.

60 So. 3d 409, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 558
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 18, 2011
DocketNo. 1D10-2919
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 So. 3d 409 (C.D.M. v. K.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
C.D.M. v. K., 60 So. 3d 409, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 558 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, C.D.M., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. It appears that sufficient proof was presented to support a determination that the parental rights of Appellant should be terminated. However, we cannot conduct an appropriate appellate review because the

[410]*410statutory factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, are not addressed in the written order and the trial court did not make any oral findings as to these factors at the hearing. The order on appeal is also silent as to whether termination of Appellant’s parental rights was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from future harm. We therefore reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for entry of an order containing the necessary findings of fact pursuant to section 39.810 and for reconsideration of any less restrictive alternatives before any final determination is reached with respect to termination. J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 18 So.3d 1170, 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); T.O. v. L.S., 954 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); S.S. v. D.L., 944 So.2d 553, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cdm v. K.
60 So. 3d 409 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 So. 3d 409, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cdm-v-k-fladistctapp-2011.