C.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services

820 So. 2d 1087, 2002 WL 1559568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 17, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-2111

StatusPublished

This text of 820 So. 2d 1087 (C.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services) 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.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 820 So. 2d 1087, 2002 WL 1559568 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As we find that the trial court’s order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence. in the record, we affirm the same. See S.D. v. Dept, of Children and Family Serve., 805 So.2d 10, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (finding that: “[t]he fact that there may be some potential good that might come from denying the termination petition does not compel denial if there is clear and convincing evidence that the child’s best interests lie in granting the petition). See also M.A.L. v. Dept. of Children and Family Servc., 812 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (father’s failure to substantially comply with case plan warranted termination of his parental rights); M.B. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 739 So.2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (termination of mother’s parental rights warranted where mother failed to comply with her case plan by the time of termination hearing).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

As we find that the trial court’s order terminating the appellant’s parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence. in the record, we affirm the same. See S.D. v. Dept, of Children and Family Serve., 805 So.2d 10, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (finding that: “[t]he fact that there may be some potential good that might come from denying the termination petition does not compel denial if there is clear and convincing evidence that the child’s best interests lie in granting the petition). See also M.A.L. v. Dept. of Children and Family Servc., 812 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (father’s failure to substantially comply with case plan warranted termination of his parental rights); M.B. v. Dept. of Children and Families, 739 So.2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (termination of mother’s parental rights warranted where mother failed to comply with her case plan by the time of termination hearing).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 1087, 2002 WL 1559568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cs-v-department-of-children-family-services-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack