N.W. v. Department of Children & Families

865 So. 2d 625, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 640, 2004 WL 134035
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 28, 2004
DocketNo. 4D03-1351
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 865 So. 2d 625 (N.W. 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.W. v. Department of Children & Families, 865 So. 2d 625, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 640, 2004 WL 134035 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

N.W., the mother, appeals the final order of the circuit court terminating her parental rights to two children, A.S. and C.S., pursuant to section 39.806(l)(c), (f), Florida Statutes (2002).1 We find that the trial court’s order of termination is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991)(“[B]ecause parental [626]*626rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest, the state must establish in each case that termination of those rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.”).

While it appears that the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings as to why it denied the mother’s motion to allow A.S. to testify at the final hearing, see Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.255(d)(2)(C)(stating that the court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling whether to allow a child witness to testify), this issue was not raised in the initial brief and is therefore abandoned. See J.A.B. Enters. v. Gibbons, 596 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Additionally, we find that it was proper for the trial court to take judicial notice of the prior court orders, including the dependency order, the orders from the periodic review hearings, and the order terminating the parental rights of the father. See § 90.202, Fla. Stat. (2002).

A court record is not subject to dispute: either it is or it is not a record of a court. When it is shown to the satisfaction of the trial judge that a document is a record of a court, then the judge should judicially notice it.

CHARLES W. EHRHARDT, FLORIDA EVIDENCE § 202.6, at 59-60 (2008 ed.).

We have reviewed the other issues raised on appeal and find no error. Accordingly, the order of termination of parental rights is AFFIRMED.

WARNER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

K.A., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
City of Miami v. Haigley, Etc.
143 So. 3d 1025 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
CG v. Department of Children and Families
67 So. 3d 1141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
865 So. 2d 625, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 640, 2004 WL 134035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nw-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2004.