In the Interest of ARS

617 So. 2d 1148, 1993 WL 154238
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 14, 1993
Docket91-00810
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 617 So. 2d 1148 (In the Interest of ARS) 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
In the Interest of ARS, 617 So. 2d 1148, 1993 WL 154238 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

617 So.2d 1148 (1993)

In the Interest of A.R.S. and S.S., Children.
N.W., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 91-00810.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 1993.

Howard J. Shifke of Howard J. Shifke, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.

Michael G. King, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Child Welfare Legal Services, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the mother, challenges the order terminating her parental rights to her children, A.R.S. and S.S., and permanently committing them to the custody of appellee, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), for foster care placement and planning.

In a termination of parental rights case, the court considers the grounds for termination and the manifest best interests of the child. Section 39.467(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990) lists the factors which must be considered by the court in determining the manifest best interest of the child. Here, the trial court made a specific finding as to each element enumerated in *1149 the statute. In addition, the court found that the elements of section 39.467(3) had been proven by clear and convincing evidence. In the Interest of D.F., K.W. and T.W., 602 So.2d 970 (Fla.1st DCA 1992). Competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings and decision that the evidence clearly showed neglect and abandonment of the children by appellant. Appellant does not seriously dispute the findings of the trial court but appears simply to suggest that she should be given one more chance.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nl v. Dept. of Children and Family Ser.
843 So. 2d 996 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
MA v. Dept. of Children and Families
814 So. 2d 1244 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
K.S. v. R.C.
766 So. 2d 1224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
KS Ex Rel. AS v. RC Ex Rel. As
766 So. 2d 1224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
617 So. 2d 1148, 1993 WL 154238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ars-fladistctapp-1993.