D.G. v. DCF

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED D.G., FATHER OF D.L., A CHILD, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D18-1049 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 15, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Stasia Warren, Judge. Ryan Thomas Truskoski, of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee. Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem. PER CURIAM. D.G. appeals the order terminating his parental rights to D.L. We affirm. The record supports the trial court’s findings that the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) proved, by clear and convincing evidence, a ground for termination pursuant to section 39.806(1)(d)(3), Florida Statutes (2017).1 Because DCF was required to prove only one statutory ground for termination, we do not need to address whether the trial court correctly relied on other grounds for termination.2 See § 39.802(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2017); S.D. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 80 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). AFFIRMED. COHEN, C.J., and TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 1 Section 39.806(1)(d)(3) provides that grounds for termination of parental rights may be established where the court determines by clear and convincing evidence “that continuing the parental relationship with the incarcerated parent would be harmful to the child and, for this reason, that termination of parental rights of an incarcerated parent is in the best interest of the child.” 2 We recognize that DCF conceded that some of the statutory grounds relied upon by the trial court for termination were not supported by the evidence. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.