K.P. v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K.P. v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

617 So. 2d 819, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4711, 1993 WL 135722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 1993

DocketNo. 92-03226

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 617 So. 2d 819 (K.P. v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative 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

K.P. v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 617 So. 2d 819, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4711, 1993 WL 135722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

K.P. raises three issues in her challenge of the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. We find merit in her argument that the trial court erred in failing to make findings with regard to the manifest best interests of the child as required by section 39.467(2), Florida Statutes (1991).

Neither the court’s order nor the transcript indicate that the trial court considered or evaluated all of the factors delineated in section 39.467(2)(a)-(k) in reaching the determination that termination of parental rights was in the manifest best interests of the child. See In the Interest of C.K., 601 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Our review of the record indicates that evidence of the enumerated factors of section 39.467(2) was considered by the trial court. Thus, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order containing the necessary findings of fact. We otherwise affirm.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

K.P. raises three issues in her challenge of the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. We find merit in her argument that the trial court erred in failing to make findings with regard to the manifest best interests of the child as required by section 39.467(2), Florida Statutes (1991).

Neither the court’s order nor the transcript indicate that the trial court considered or evaluated all of the factors delineated in section 39.467(2)(a)-(k) in reaching the determination that termination of parental rights was in the manifest best interests of the child. See In the Interest of C.K., 601 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Our review of the record indicates that evidence of the enumerated factors of section 39.467(2) was considered by the trial court. Thus, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter an order containing the necessary findings of fact. We otherwise affirm.

Reversed and remanded.

CAMPBELL and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 819, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 4711, 1993 WL 135722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kp-v-state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack