Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

Terminating a parent’s rights in Florida requires that the court make findings with clear and convincing evidence that “(1) [at least one statutory ground exists] for terminating parental rights set forth in Fla. Stat. Chp. 39.806(1); (2) termination is in the manifest best interest of the child; and (3) termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child from serious harm.” Molina v. Fuenmayor, 3D22-1756 (Fla. 3d DCA November 1, 2023).

The parents in this case lived in Venezuela at the time of their daughter’s birth in 2011. A Venezuelan court issued a custody order and both parties were involved in the child’s life. In 2012, the mother took the child to Miami, which prompted the father to file a petition for return of the child through the Hague Convention. The parties returned to Venezuela after the father’s petition was resolved in his favor. In 2014, the father relocated to the United States. The mother filed a petition for return of the child under the Hague Convention which was denied. In 2018, the mother filed a petition to prevent the child from leaving Miami-Dade County. By that time, the mother had not seen the child since 2013. In response, the father filed a counter-petition seeking termination of the mother’s parental rights. After a five-day trial, the court granted the father’s petition to terminate the mother’s rights on grounds of (1) abandonment (§ 39.806(1)(b)); (2) conduct threatening the life, safety, wellbeing, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child irrespective of the provision of services (§ 39.806(1)(c)); egregious conduct (§ 39.806(1)(f)); and conspiracy or solicitation to murder the other parent (§ 39.806(1)(h)).” The mother appealed.

The appellate court noted that the mother appealed all four grounds upon which the trial court relied to terminate her rights. The appellate court focused on the abandonment finding, noting “The court found that the Mother, while being able, made no contribution to the child’s care and maintenance and failed to maintain a positive relationship with her. The court further found that M.N., who was 11 years old at the time of the hearing, had not seen her mother since she was two years old. Though the Mother testified that she made efforts to establish a relationship with M.N., the court found that these efforts were not sufficient.”

The court concluded “Based on the ample testimony and other evidence below, including the Guardian ad Litem’s detailed report, we must conclude that the trial court’s findings were supported by competent substantial evidence. Because the existence of only one statutory ground is necessary for termination of parental rights, we need not consider the other three grounds the trial court relied on.” The court continued “Having concluded that at least one of the statutory grounds is supported by competent substantial evidence, we briefly address the least restrictive means requirement. Ordinarily, a good faith effort should be made to rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family. [internal citations omitted]. However, this is not required in certain extraordinary circumstances because the best interest of the child must ultimately prevail. [internal citations omitted]. Here, given the circumstances in this case, the trial court determined that termination of the Mother’s parental rights satisfied the least restrictive means requirement. Because it is not our role to evaluate and weigh the evidence, we are compelled to affirm. Moreover, as the trial court correctly concluded in its order, reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family are not required for the grounds pled in the Father’s underlying Counterpetition.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.