R.T. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.T. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

174 So. 3d 577, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13050

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 2015

Docket3D15-1155

StatusPublished

This text of 174 So. 3d 577 (R.T. v. Florida 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.T. v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 174 So. 3d 577, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13050 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

R.T. (“the father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his daughter, R.A.T. (“the child”), who was eight years old when the final judgment for termination of parental rights was entered on February 2, 2015. Termination of R.T.’s parental rights was based on *578 abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court’s finding that termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is “in desperate need of permanency” that R.T. cannot provide.

The child and her three siblings, who share the same mother but have different fathers, have been living together in a pre-adoptive home for approximately two years, and their caregiver wishes to adopt all four siblings. The mother’s parental rights to the child and her three siblings have been terminated, and each of the respective fathers’ parental rights to the child’s three siblings also have been terminated. Although R.T. has maintained telephone contact with the child, the record supports the trial court’s findings that R.T. is unable to care for, support, and father his child; R.T. has no suitable family members to care for the child; and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised with her siblings, with whom she has bonded, and to achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family that wishes to adopt all four siblings and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the child throughout the pendency of this case. Because the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. T.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Sews., 905 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

R.T. (“the father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights as to his daughter, R.A.T. (“the child”), who was eight years old when the final judgment for termination of parental rights was entered on February 2, 2015. Termination of R.T.’s parental rights was based on *578 abandonment pursuant to section 39.806(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014), and the trial court’s finding that termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child and is in the best interests of the child, who is “in desperate need of permanency” that R.T. cannot provide.

The child and her three siblings, who share the same mother but have different fathers, have been living together in a pre-adoptive home for approximately two years, and their caregiver wishes to adopt all four siblings. The mother’s parental rights to the child and her three siblings have been terminated, and each of the respective fathers’ parental rights to the child’s three siblings also have been terminated. Although R.T. has maintained telephone contact with the child, the record supports the trial court’s findings that R.T. is unable to care for, support, and father his child; R.T. has no suitable family members to care for the child; and it is in the best interest of the child to be raised with her siblings, with whom she has bonded, and to achieve permanency with the pre-adoptive family that wishes to adopt all four siblings and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the child throughout the pendency of this case. Because the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. T.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Sews., 905 So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 3d 577, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rt-v-florida-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack