N.M. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

N.M. v. Department of Children & Families

103 So. 3d 1005, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21692

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 19, 2012

DocketNos. 3D12-1365, 3D12-1364

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 3d 1005 (N.M. 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. v. Department of Children & Families, 103 So. 3d 1005, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21692 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating the parental rights of both the mother and the father to three female children, based essentially on sexual abuse of a sibling of the children in question by the father and the mother’s failure to appropriately protect the other children from the dangers he presented. § 39.806(l)(f), (g), Fla. Stat. (2012).¹ See N.R.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 959 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). See generally In re Z.C. (1), [1006]*100688 So.3d 977, 989-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (Altenbernd, J., concurring).

The thrust of the parents’ contentions on appeal is that, although the record supports the trial judge’s resolution of the disputed issue of whether the abuse occurred, the result was tainted by several allegedly erroneous rulings in the admission and rejection of evidence at the trial. We have carefully examined each of the arguments presented and find that none of them present reversible error: the rulings complained of did not constitute an abuse of discretion, were harmless, or both. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1967); Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla.2003) (“A trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”).

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment terminating the parental rights of both the mother and the father to three female children, based essentially on sexual abuse of a sibling of the children in question by the father and the mother’s failure to appropriately protect the other children from the dangers he presented. § 39.806(l)(f), (g), Fla. Stat. (2012).¹ See N.R.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 959 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). See generally In re Z.C. (1), [1006]*100688 So.3d 977, 989-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (Altenbernd, J., concurring).

The thrust of the parents’ contentions on appeal is that, although the record supports the trial judge’s resolution of the disputed issue of whether the abuse occurred, the result was tainted by several allegedly erroneous rulings in the admission and rejection of evidence at the trial. We have carefully examined each of the arguments presented and find that none of them present reversible error: the rulings complained of did not constitute an abuse of discretion, were harmless, or both. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1967); Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla.2003) (“A trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 3d 1005, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nm-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack