Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 16, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1283
Lower Tribunal No. 18-15287
________________
F.C., the father,
Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason E. Dimitris,
Judge.
Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., and Albert W. Guffanti, for appellant.
Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Thomasina
F. Moore (Tallahassee); Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A., and Jonathan W. Taylor
(Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
F.C., the father, appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights
entered after a bench trial. The trial court found, as statutory grounds for terminating
the father’s parental rights, that the father failed to substantially comply with his
case plan for 12 months after the child was adjudicated dependent, in violation of
section 39.806(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (2020), and failed to substantially comply
with his case plan for any 12 of the 22 months the child has been in care, in violation
of section 39.806(1)(e)(3), Florida Statutes (2020). The court further found the
father’s failure to comply with his case plan was not due to a lack of financial
resources.
It is within the trial court’s province to weigh the evidence and make
credibility determinations. I.D. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 13 So. 3d 1117, 1120
(Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing M.R. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 783 So. 2d 277,
278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). Once the trial court determines the Department met its
burden, the court’s order is clothed with a “presumption of correctness.” See C.G.
v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 67 So. 3d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Thus, this
Court’s review is “highly deferential.” Id. On challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence, this Court should affirm if the trial court’s order is supported by competent
substantial evidence. T.P. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 935 So. 2d 621, 624
(Fla. 3d DCA 2006). However, on pure issues of law, this Court’s review is de novo.
Fla. Dep’t of Child & Fams. v. M.N., 199 So. 3d 452, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
2
Here, we find no legal error and that the trial court’s order is supported by
competent substantial evidence. See C.B. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 257 So. 3d
1078, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining that mere completion of case plan tasks
does not equate to “substantial compliance” with a case plan); In re D.R., 812 So.
2d 447, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (affirming an order terminating parental rights
when the father failed to substantially comply with his case plan by committing new
legal violations, violating probation, and failing to remedy a drug problem); D.G. v.
Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 77 So.3d 201, 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Where the trial
court’s finding that there is clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental
rights is supported by competent, substantial evidence, the appellate court has no
choice but to affirm.”).
Affirmed.
3