FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D21-29 _____________________________ B.V., Father of E.E.V., A Minor Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Steven B. Whittington, Judge. September 17, 2021 M.K. THOMAS, J. B.V. appeals from a final order terminating his parental rights pursuant to section 39.806(1)(c), Florida Statutes. B.V. raises three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court’s finding that Appellant engaged in conduct towards the child that demonstrated his continuing involvement would threaten his life, safety, well- being or physical, mental, or emotional health, irrespective of the provision of services, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence; (2) the trial court erred in finding termination was in the child’s best interest; and (3) the trial court erred in finding termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm. Finding no error, we affirm the final order. However, given B.V. was deported and participated in a case plan following his deportation, we write to explain how the trial court’s finding that termination was appropriate under section 39.806(1)(c) is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Facts The child, born February 26, 2018, was taken into custody by the Department on July 18, 2018, and placed with a foster family. The Department became involved after it received reports of abuse. The shelter petition stated that B.V.’s address was unknown and the child was residing with its mother. The mother, who is married to B.V., apparently had issues with substance abuse, and there were reports of violence in the home, including an altercation involving B.V. Shortly after the child was sheltered, B.V. was deported to El Salvador. B.V. was granted supervised visitation of three, ninety-minute visits per week. Although the mother did not complete her case plan tasks and subsequently surrendered her parental rights, B.V. engaged in services in El Salvador, such as completing a parenting class and anger management. Initially, B.V. indicated that he did not wish to be reunited with the child in El Salvador, but instead, he was attempting to return to the United States. In May 2019, the Department indicated that it recommended an amendment to the case plan goal to adoption. At a hearing the following month, B.V. expressed for the first time a desire to have the child sent to him in El Salvador. Thereafter, an international home study was completed on the father’s residence in El Salvador, which was not approved. During the home study, B.V. again indicated that although he wished to be reunited with his son, he did not want his son in El Salvador due to the conditions there. B.V. reported working in the fields and operating a truck three days per week with a monthly income of $160.00. His house is made of mixed materials (sheet, cement, wood, plastic). It does not have a shower, and the toilet is compost and located outside. Bathing is done outdoors. There is no drinking water system. It was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals