Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 13, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-349
Lower Tribunal No. 02-15849
________________
B.P., The Father,
Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angélica D.
Zayas, Judge.
Cooke Law P.A., and Stewart M. Cooke, for appellant.
Karla Perkins, for appellee, Department of Children and Families; Sara
Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Amanda Victoria
Glass, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division (Tallahassee), for appellee,
Guardian ad Litem.
Before EMAS, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See D.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 930 So. 2d
798, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The standard of review on 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’” (quoting N.L. v. Dept. of Children and Family Serv., 843 So. 2d 996,
999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)); J.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 326 So. 3d
76, 78-79 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (noting that an appellate court will not review
the evidence in a light most favorable to the parent, but in a neutral manner
to assess whether the competent, substantial evidence supports the trial
court’s conclusion; so long as the competent, substantial evidence supports
the trial court’s ruling on one of the statutory grounds alleged as a basis for
termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes, a reviewing court will
affirm that ruling). See also Lecorps v. Star Lakes Ass’n, Inc., 47 Fla. L.
Weekly D1136 at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA May 25, 2022) (“It is axiomatic that the trial
court retains inherent authority to reconsider any of its nonfinal rulings prior
to entry of the final judgment or another order terminating the action”) (citing
Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998)); C.B. v. Dep’t of
Children & Families, 257 So. 3d 1078, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (observing
that “the circumstances surrounding the creation of the case plan may extend
2
to problems identified subsequent to the children's removal, and not
exclusively those identified contemporaneous to removal.”)
3