R.A. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.A. v. Department of Children & Families

878 So. 2d 1272, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11657, 2004 WL 1749558

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 2004

DocketNo. 5D03-2699

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 878 So. 2d 1272 (R.A. 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

R.A. v. Department of Children & Families, 878 So. 2d 1272, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11657, 2004 WL 1749558 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

R.A. (father) appeals the final order entered by the trial court terminating his parental rights to his twin children, J.A. and E.A., born on July 31, 2002. We affirm.

The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or health of the children, and on the basis of the father’s egregious conduct.¹ The father challenges -the court’s ruling, arguing first that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights based upon a finding of “egregious conduct” because the Department of Children and Families (DCF) never alleged egregious conduct as a basis for termination in any of the pleadings. DCF properly responds by conceding error on this issue and, therefore, we strike the portions of the termination order which cite to the issue of egregious conduct.

The father also argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the well-being of the children. Our review of the record reveals that sufficient evidence was presented during the termination hearing to support the trial court’s decision that termination was warranted in this case. As such, the court’s ruling is affirmed.

Accordingly, the trial court’s termination order is affirmed in all aspects, except that portion finding clear and convincing evidence of egregious conduct pursuant to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes is stricken, in that such conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination. See R.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 867 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)(holding that portion of trial court’s termination order finding clear and convincing evidence of egregious must be stricken because such [1273]*1273conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination).

AFFIRMED, as modified.

PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

R.A. (father) appeals the final order entered by the trial court terminating his parental rights to his twin children, J.A. and E.A., born on July 31, 2002. We affirm.

The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or health of the children, and on the basis of the father’s egregious conduct.¹ The father challenges -the court’s ruling, arguing first that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights based upon a finding of “egregious conduct” because the Department of Children and Families (DCF) never alleged egregious conduct as a basis for termination in any of the pleadings. DCF properly responds by conceding error on this issue and, therefore, we strike the portions of the termination order which cite to the issue of egregious conduct.

The father also argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights on the basis that the parent-child relationship threatens the well-being of the children. Our review of the record reveals that sufficient evidence was presented during the termination hearing to support the trial court’s decision that termination was warranted in this case. As such, the court’s ruling is affirmed.

Accordingly, the trial court’s termination order is affirmed in all aspects, except that portion finding clear and convincing evidence of egregious conduct pursuant to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes is stricken, in that such conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination. See R.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 867 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)(holding that portion of trial court’s termination order finding clear and convincing evidence of egregious must be stricken because such [1273]*1273conduct was not alleged in the petition for termination).

AFFIRMED, as modified.

PLEUS, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

878 So. 2d 1272, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11657, 2004 WL 1749558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ra-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack