KR-P. v. Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

KR-P. v. Department of Children and Families

68 So. 3d 428, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14242

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 2011

Docket5D10-3897

StatusPublished

This text of 68 So. 3d 428 (KR-P. v. Department of Children and 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

KR-P. v. Department of Children and Families, 68 So. 3d 428, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14242 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

K.R-P. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her children D.R. and E.R., finding that she consented to the termination by failing to appear at the adjudicatory hearing. We affirm.

This Court is required to affirm the trial court’s findings “[i]f, upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there is any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court’s judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.” Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So.2d 780, 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We may not conduct a de novo proceeding nor substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. P.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 10 So.3d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). After a careful review of the record, we find that there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s findings and conclusions, and we affirm the final judgment in all respects.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

K.R-P. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her children D.R. and E.R., finding that she consented to the termination by failing to appear at the adjudicatory hearing. We affirm.

This Court is required to affirm the trial court’s findings “[i]f, upon the pleadings and evidence before the trial court, there is any theory or principle of law which would support the trial court’s judgment in favor of terminating ... parental rights.” Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So.2d 780, 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We may not conduct a de novo proceeding nor substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. P.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 10 So.3d 707 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). After a careful review of the record, we find that there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s findings and conclusions, and we affirm the final judgment in all respects.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 So. 3d 428, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kr-p-v-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack