J.K. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.K. v. Department of Children & Families

96 So. 3d 1101, 2012 WL 3827255, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14839

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 2012

DocketNo. 4D12-1006

StatusPublished

This text of 96 So. 3d 1101 (J.K. v. Department of Children & Families) 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

J.K. v. Department of Children & Families, 96 So. 3d 1101, 2012 WL 3827255, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14839 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her child. She argues that the trial court’s findings are not supported by the evidence. We disagree and affirm.

We have reviewed the record. Numerous witnesses testified to the efforts made to educate the mother on proper parenting skills, to help the mother with mental health issues and to understand the importance of medication compliance, and the need to provide a stable environment for the child. Despite the intervention of Healthy Start, Healthy Families, Family Preservation Services, and New Horizons, little progress was made to warrant reunification between the mother and the child.

As the trial court found, “substantial credible evidence and testimony” supported the finding that the mother “engaged in conduct toward the child ... that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the parent ... threatens the life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental or emotional health of the child.” See § 39.806(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). The trial court’s order is replete with detailed facts supporting this finding. See, e.g., D.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 87 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that the trial court’s “numerous findings of fact” supported termination of parental rights).

The court found no suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative existed. However, it is likely that adoptive parents will be found. It is thus in the manifest best interest of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights. We agree that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child and to ensure the ultimate welfare and best interest of the child given the facts of the case. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her child. She argues that the trial court’s findings are not supported by the evidence. We disagree and affirm.

We have reviewed the record. Numerous witnesses testified to the efforts made to educate the mother on proper parenting skills, to help the mother with mental health issues and to understand the importance of medication compliance, and the need to provide a stable environment for the child. Despite the intervention of Healthy Start, Healthy Families, Family Preservation Services, and New Horizons, little progress was made to warrant reunification between the mother and the child.

As the trial court found, “substantial credible evidence and testimony” supported the finding that the mother “engaged in conduct toward the child ... that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the parent ... threatens the life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental or emotional health of the child.” See § 39.806(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). The trial court’s order is replete with detailed facts supporting this finding. See, e.g., D.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 87 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that the trial court’s “numerous findings of fact” supported termination of parental rights).

The court found no suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative existed. However, it is likely that adoptive parents will be found. It is thus in the manifest best interest of the child to terminate the mother’s parental rights. We agree that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child and to ensure the ultimate welfare and best interest of the child given the facts of the case. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 3d 1101, 2012 WL 3827255, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 14839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jk-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack