T.R., the Father v. Department of Children and Families

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-1940 Lower Tribunal No. D22-15018 TP

T.R., the Father, Appellant,

vs.

Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Scott M. Bernstein, Judge.

Thomas Butler, P.A. and Thomas J. Butler, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb and Laura J. Lee (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Walker v. Harley-Anderson, 301 So. 3d 299, 301 (Fla.

4th DCA 2020) (“Review of a trial court's determination regarding the

authentication of evidence is for an abuse of discretion.”);

T.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 905 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA

2005) (“The standard of review in a case where the trial court terminates

parental rights is whether the judgment is supported by substantial and

competent evidence.”); Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. A.R., 253 So. 3d

1158, 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Appellate review of a termination of

parental rights case is ‘highly deferential.’ That is, a ‘finding that evidence is

clear and convincing enjoys a presumption of correctness and will not be

overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary

support.’” (citation omitted)); J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 18 So.

3d 1170, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[E]ven if a parent has technically

complied with the tasks required by the case plan, he or she will still not be

in substantial compliance if the circumstances that caused the creation of the

case plan have not been sufficiently remedied.”); Q.L. v. Dep’t of Children &

Families, 280 So. 3d 107, 115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Where there is no expert

testimony on this issue, or where the expert testimony is based on

observations, interviews, or reports that are obsolete, reversal may be

appropriate because the trial court's findings would be speculative.”); A.P. v.

2 Dep’t of Children & Families, 390 So. 3d 727, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)

(“[N]either the statute nor Q.L. imposes an evidentiary requirement under this

subsection that can be met only by expert testimony. . . . [E]xpert testimony

is not a sine qua non of termination of parental rights under this section.

Indeed, our review of the record in the instant case reveals the Department

introduced competent, substantial evidence . . . to meet its burden in this

case[.]”).