Opinion
No. 1D21-865
01-06-2022
N.F., father of N.F. and N.F., Each a Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
David Maldonado, Lakeland, for Appellant. Ward L. Metzger Children Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, Statewide Guardian ad Litem, Tallahassee; Beth Kathryn Roland, Defending Best Interests Project, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Orlando, for Guardian ad Litem.
David Maldonado, Lakeland, for Appellant.
Ward L. Metzger Children Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, Statewide Guardian ad Litem, Tallahassee; Beth Kathryn Roland, Defending Best Interests Project, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Orlando, for Guardian ad Litem.
Per Curiam.
Appellant, the father of two minor children, challenges the final order terminating his parental rights on two grounds. We affirm. Our review shows that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that the Department proved at least one statutory ground, thereby complying with section 39.802(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020). The ground proven was Appellant "engaged in conduct towards the child or children that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the parent or parents in the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child, irrespective of the provision of services." § 39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020).
Since the Department needed to prove only one ground for termination, we need not decide whether the trial court correctly determined that Appellant's alcohol abuse satisfied section 39.806(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as an alternative ground. See § 39.802(4)(a) ; R.V. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams ., 301 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). Further, we affirm the trial court's finding that termination is in the best interest of the children and was the least restrictive means of protecting the children. See J.P. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. and Fams ., 183 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).
AFFIRMED .
Roberts, Ray, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.