Gordon v. Freeman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gordon v. Freeman

625 So. 2d 1245, 1993 WL 337044

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 1993

DocketNo. 93-52

StatusPublished

This text of 625 So. 2d 1245 (Gordon v. Freeman) 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

Gordon v. Freeman, 625 So. 2d 1245, 1993 WL 337044 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Louis Gordon and Faith Gordon appeal an order terminating parental rights. We affirm.

In point one of the appeal the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that there was substantial competent evidence adduced in the ten day trial to support the order under review. The order shows that the trial court applied the correct legal standard. This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence.

The second point on appeal contends that subsection 39.464(5), Florida Statutes (1991) is unconstitutionally vague. This point was not raised below. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970) (“Constitutional issues, other than those constituting fundamental error, are waived unless they are timely raised.”); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review § 301 (1978). Assuming ar-guendo that the issue is cognizable under the fundamental error doctrine, we agree with appellees that subsection 39.464(5) must be read in conjunction with subsection 39.01(50), Florida Statutes (1991), which defines “substantial compliance” with particularity. The present statute has been revised in order to cure the deficiency identified in In the Interest of R.W., 495 So.2d 133 (Fla.1986), and is sufficiently specific.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Louis Gordon and Faith Gordon appeal an order terminating parental rights. We affirm.

In point one of the appeal the parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that there was substantial competent evidence adduced in the ten day trial to support the order under review. The order shows that the trial court applied the correct legal standard. This court is not permitted to reweigh the evidence.

The second point on appeal contends that subsection 39.464(5), Florida Statutes (1991) is unconstitutionally vague. This point was not raised below. See Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970) (“Constitutional issues, other than those constituting fundamental error, are waived unless they are timely raised.”); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review § 301 (1978). Assuming ar-guendo that the issue is cognizable under the fundamental error doctrine, we agree with appellees that subsection 39.464(5) must be read in conjunction with subsection 39.01(50), Florida Statutes (1991), which defines “substantial compliance” with particularity. The present statute has been revised in order to cure the deficiency identified in In the Interest of R.W., 495 So.2d 133 (Fla.1986), and is sufficiently specific.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 So. 2d 1245, 1993 WL 337044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-freeman-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack