N.M., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

District Court of Appeal of Florida

N.M., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 2020

Docket20-1477

StatusPublished

This text of N.M., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES (N.M., THE FATHER 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

N.M., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

N.M., the Father, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D20-1477

[October 28, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kathleen Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-DP-000366- XXXX-MB.

Andrew A. Holness of the Law Offices of Andrew A. Holness, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. Valley, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

N.M., the father, appeals an order terminating his parental rights. We find that the father’s arguments on appeal for reversal are meritless, and we affirm the termination of his parental rights based on his constructive consent.

However, we remand to the trial court for correction of what the Department of Children and Families concedes is a “scrivener’s error.” The order on appeal states that certain facts supporting the termination of parental rights, such as exposure of the child to substance misuse, sexual abuse, and domestic violence, as well as the father’s sexual abuse of another child, were “clearly and convincingly demonstrated through testimony.” (Emphasis added.) There being no competent, substantial testimony to support these facts, we remand for the trial court to correct the judgment to reflect that termination was based on constructive consent, not testimony, and to strike any portions of the order indicating the contrary.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN, JJ., and FRINK, KEATHAN, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

N.M., the Father, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D20-1477

[October 28, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kathleen Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-DP-000366- XXXX-MB.

Andrew A. Holness of the Law Offices of Andrew A. Holness, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. Valley, Senior Attorney, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

N.M., the father, appeals an order terminating his parental rights. We find that the father’s arguments on appeal for reversal are meritless, and we affirm the termination of his parental rights based on his constructive consent.

However, we remand to the trial court for correction of what the Department of Children and Families concedes is a “scrivener’s error.” The order on appeal states that certain facts supporting the termination of parental rights, such as exposure of the child to substance misuse, sexual abuse, and domestic violence, as well as the father’s sexual abuse of another child, were “clearly and convincingly demonstrated through testimony.” (Emphasis added.) There being no competent, substantial testimony to support these facts, we remand for the trial court to correct the judgment to reflect that termination was based on constructive consent, not testimony, and to strike any portions of the order indicating the contrary.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN, JJ., and FRINK, KEATHAN, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

N.M., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nm-the-father-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2020.