Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...ause DCF did not offer F.L. a case plan with a goal of reunification, I would remand to the trial court for further proceedings as the Fourth District opinion directs. In brief response to Justice Cantero's specially concurring opinion, I agree that section 39.810 contains a detailed description of the factors that the trial court must consider in determining whether termination is in the manifest best interests of the child....

...But if there is a chance that the parent and child could be reunited without harm to the child, that is clearly the preferable alternative. ANSTEAD, J., concurs. CANTERO, J., specially concurring. I agree with the majority that section 39.806( l )(i), Florida Statutes, is constitutional, but I believe that section 39.810 greatly affects the constitutional analysis. I would adopt Judge Sawaya's specially concurring opinion in T.P. v. Department of Children & Families, 860 So.2d 1084, 1090-95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), which recognizes the interplay between sections 39.806 and 39.810 and concludes that the statute does not shift the burden of proof and does not create a rebuttable presumption....

...None of these circumstances, however, in itself authorizes the termination of a parent's rights. Rather, as the majority notes, section 39.806( l )(i)—as with any other subsection—"merely gets DCF through the courthouse door." Majority op. at 609. This is where section 39.810 comes in....

...Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 565, 570 (Fla.1991), and in recognition of the overriding importance of protecting the welfare of children, the Florida Legislature in 1994 enacted section 39.4612, Florida Statutes, renumbered in 1998 as section 39.810....

...utory ground for terminating parental rights, along with clear and *614 convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child." N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Fam. Servs., 843 So.2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). [7] Section 39.810 specifically requires that the trial court, in determining whether termination is in the manifest best interests of the child, consider and evaluate all relevant factors, which "shall not include a comparison between the attributes of...

...(10) The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. (11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child's guardian ad litem or legal representative. *615 § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2002) (emphasis added). [8] Thus, with the enactment of section 39.810, the State may no longer terminate the parental rights in one child solely because that parental rights in another have been terminated....

...poses a substantial risk of significant harm to the child." 577 So.2d at 571. The state must also establish that termination of parental rights "is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm." Id. We decided Padgett before section 39.810 was enacted. Padgett essentially filled in a constitutional gap in the statute. Section 39.810 now provides the filler....

...For example, if the child is currently residing with the parent, the "reunification" standard of Padgett would not even apply because the parent and child have never been separated. Padgett's "substantial risk of significant harm to the child" standard is subsumed in subsection (3) of section 39.810 (addressing "[t]he capacity of the parent or parents to care for the child to the extent that the child's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health will not be endangered upon the child's return home"), as well as...

...nt with a relative of the child"—a less restrictive means than termination. Judge Sawaya has noted that a finding that termination is in the child's manifest best interests necessarily implies that no less restrictive alternatives exist. Therefore, section 39.810 renders the less restrictive means test unnecessary. See T.P., 860 So.2d at 1094-95 (Sawaya, C.J., specially concurring). Section 39.806 specifies the circumstances under which one may petition for the termination of parental rights. Under section 39.810, however, the burden remains on the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child require it....

...n terminated involuntarily." § 39.806(1)(i), Fla. Stat. (2002). [5] To terminate parental rights, DCF must also prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the manifest best interest of the child. See §§ 39.802(4)(c), 39.809(1), 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2002). [6] We note that the statutory determination of the manifest best interest of the child is unchanged by our opinion here. See §§ 39.802(4)(c), 39.809(1), 39.810, Fla....

...WOLF, C.J., and BROWNING, J., CONCUR. NOTES [1] Treatment Alternative to Street Crime. [2] We note that, before termination can occur under any statutory provision, the trial court must also conclude termination is in the children's manifest best interests. See § 39.810, Fla....

...In short, under the statute, the egregious sexual abuse of A.B. would be independent statutory authority for termination of parental rights to other children, assuming, of course, the "manifest best interests" requirement for parental rights' termination is met. § 39.810, Fla....

...§ 39.806(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2003) (emphasis supplied). For any termination of parental rights under chapter 39, the trial court must find, in addition to the specific grounds contained in section 39.806, that termination is in the best interests of the child. See § 39.810, Fla....

...ns of protecting the child from harm." F.L., 880 So.2d at 608; Padgett, 577 So.2d at 571. In addition, the petitioner must allege, and the trial court must find, that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child. See §§ 39.802(4)(c), 39.810, Fla....

...with and supporting his children must be measured against his limited opportunity to assume those duties while imprisoned"). Further, termination of an incarcerated parent's rights when another parent retains custody, *1054 which is permitted under section 39.810(3), Florida Statutes, would in many cases be contrary to the child's best interests if the custodial parent facilitates contact with the incarcerated parent....

...4th DCA 2003) ("The law as presently stated is clear and unambiguous and does not provide the legal authority to a court to order a parent whose parental rights have been terminated to pay child support."). Therefore, trial courts should take the loss of child support, present and future, into consideration under section 39.810(2), Florida Statutes, [7] in determining whether the best interest of the child is served by termination of the parental rights of an incarcerated parent....

...ication in this case. See Singletary v. State, 322 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla.1975) (warning that "courts should not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes if the case in which the question arises may be effectively disposed of on other grounds"). [7] Section 39.810(2), Florida Statutes (2003), provides: For the purpose of determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: .......

...n established. Rath burn v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 826 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Second, the trial court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child by evaluation of all relevant factors, including those set out in section 39.810....

...5th DCA 2001) (holding that section 39.806(1)(d) did not apply to a parent who had already started serving his prison sentence prior to the effective date prescribed by statute). Manifest best interest of the child J.T. also challenges the trial court's finding under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000), that termination was in the manifest best interest of T.B....

...Finding that termination is in the manifest best interest of the child is an essential predicate for the termination of parental rights. J.L.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 750 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We agree that the trial court's findings under section 39.810 were flawed. In considering whether termination is in the best interest of a child, section 39.810 requires the trial court to consider, among other things, whether there is any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child....

...d positive for cocaine at their birth, and that C.C.'s parental rights had been terminated as to one of them on that account. Although evidence supports the findings indicating C.C. abuses drugs, other fact findings, including those made pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000) ("Manifest best interests of the child"), are problematic....

...child under circumstances involving abuse or neglect may serve as grounds for permanently severing the parent's rights in a different child" (footnote omitted)). We nevertheless remand for reconsideration of A.C.'s best interests, in accordance with section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000), because the fact findings in the order under review are erroneous and incomplete....

...and convincing evidence and was clearly erroneous. Finally, the Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parents' rights to the two older children is in the manifest best interest of these children. See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2002). [2] Again, the evidence at trial focused primarily upon the infant. By all accounts, the two older children were not abused. A cursory look at the factors involved in determining a child's manifest best interests under section 39.810 suggests that were the court to apply these factors to the two older children, individually, the evidence would establish that the best interests of these children would not be served by termination....

...the trial court's determination that the parents posed a substantial risk of significant harm to the two older children was clearly erroneous. [2] We note that Judge Sawaya has suggested that the "manifest best interests" considerations set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2002), effectively supplant the least restrictive means test discussed in Padgett....

...has been established. Rathburn v. Dep't of Children & Families, 826 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Second, the trial court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child by evaluation of all relevant factors, including those set out in section 39.810....

...s and being incarcerated, leaving the child to languish in the foster care system for years. The court found that termination of the parental rights was in the manifest best interest of the child, considering the factors set forth under section *776 39.810, and that termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child....

...First, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2001) has been established. Second, the trial court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child by evaluation of all relevant factors, including those set out in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...the manifest best interest of the child and the correct application of the least restrictive means test. S.S. argues that in view of the fact that the child is currently living with a relative, the trial court failed to give proper consideration to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2002), which requires the trial court to consider and evaluate the manifest best interest of the child....

...h expanded factual findings. In the amended order terminating the mother's rights, the trial court found that the Department had established grounds for termination of parental rights under paragraphs (c) and (e) of section 39.806(1) and that, under section 39.810, it was in the child's manifest best interests to terminate the mother's parental rights....

...tment" and that "[t]he danger and harm posed to the child result[] from the conditions in the father's home created by the mother and the mother's mental health condition." After addressing some of the "manifest best interests" factors enumerated in section 39.810, the trial court concluded that termination of the father's parental rights was not in the child's manifest best interests and that permanent guardianship was....

...First, they argue that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to find grounds for termination of the father's parental rights, and second, they argue that the trial court erred in failing to address specifically each of the "manifest best interests" factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...s under section 39.806(1)(e), we now consider whether the trial court erred in conducting its best interests analysis. A trial court's evaluation of the manifest best interests of a child in a termination of parental rights proceeding is governed by section 39.810, which provides as follows: In a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child.......

...(10) The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. (11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child's guardian ad litem or legal representative. Section 39.810 does not expressly require a trial court to show its consideration of each of the statutory factors through written findings....

...eres with an appellate court's ability to determine whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, reversal is necessary. See State, Dep't of Children & Families v. S.H., 734 So.2d 1080, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Here, the trial court's findings under section 39.810 are insufficient to facilitate meaningful appellate review....

...One of GAL's specific arguments under this issue merits specific attention. GAL argues that the trial court erroneously found a "strong bond" between the father and child, despite a lack of evidence of such a bond. This finding was relevant to factor (5) of section 39.810, which is "[t]he love, affection, and other emotional ties exiting between the child and the child's parent or parents, siblings, and other relatives, and the degree of harm that would arise from the termination of parental rights and...

...In fact, there is an abundance of evidence suggesting that the child would not suffer from such a disposition. We do not intend to create a rule that in every termination of parental rights case, a trial court must include express written findings as to each of the section 39.810 factors....

...the trial court could take no view of the evidence that would suggest potential harm from the severance of the father's parental rights and duties. However, it also appears, at this stage, that the trial court has not shown due consideration of the section 39.810 factors....

...[3] GAL and the Department filed separate briefs. They each purport to raise only one issue, and the nuances of their arguments are different. Essentially, however, both GAL and the Department challenge the trial court's findings under sections 39.806(1)(e) and 39.810 for lack of specificity and inconsistency....

...An appellate court cannot question the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility. L.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. (In re A.C.), 848 So.2d 433, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The Mother does not challenge the trial court's findings regarding the children's manifest best interests pursuant to section 39.810, and we find no basis to reverse....

...as suggesting that proof of termination as the least restrictive means is required to prove a statutory ground for termination under section 39.806(1)(c). Rather, chapter 39 requires proof of a ground for termination under section 39.806 and proof that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...on of parental rights filed under this chapter must contain facts supporting the following allegations: (a) That at least one of the grounds listed in s. 39.806 has been met. .... (c) That the manifest best interests of the child, in accordance with s. 39.810, would be served by the granting of the petition. [1] Section 39.810 requires that in "determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but not limited to" the various specific factors enumerated in the section. Among the specific enumerated factors the trial court must consider is whether there is "[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child." § 39.810(1)....

..." An order terminating parental rights therefore must be supported by clear and convincing evidence both that there is a ground for termination under *483 section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...In the instant case, the trial court correctly determined there was clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the grounds for termination under section 39.806 existed. The trial court's error here relates to its evaluation of the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...Accordingly, the judgment terminating V.W.'s parental rights is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall consider and evaluate "all relevant factors" concerning the manifest best interests of the child as required by section 39.810—including the existence of "[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child"—and shall base its ruling only on facts that are established by clear and convincing evidence....

...atter for trial and "there at present such evidence as it has that addresses each and every allegation in the [petition] together with such evidence it has as to each and every factor specifically enumerated in the Manifest Best Interest Statute, FS 39.810, together with such evidence as it may have relating to the issue of least restrictive disposition." Finally, the court determined that, "to the extent that FS 39.811 may be read to limit the court's options when the state fails to prove its c...

...First, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes has been established. Second, the trial court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child by evaluation of all relevant factors, including those set out in section 39.810, Florida Statutes." Rathburn v....

...STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The Department concedes that it "failed to present much evidence to the court to enable it to consider the facts relevant to a determination of the manifest best interests of the children pursuant to F.S. 39.810 [and] it is clear that the Court was not then in a position to terminate the parents' rights...." [2] We reject the guardian ad litem's invitation for us to terminate parental rights in spite of the Department's failures of proof, which it concedes in its brief. [3] Judge Sawaya has suggested that the less restrictiveness requirement is "obsolete, unnecessary, and meaningless" because of the consideration under section 39.810....

...d availability of a nonadoptive relative placement may not receive greater consideration than any other factor weighing on the manifest best interest of the child and may not be considered as a factor weighing against termination of parental rights. § 39.810(1), Fla....

...The motions for rehearing en banc and for certification are denied. C.M. (Appellant), the biological father of a 2-1/2-year-old daughter, A.A., appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights over the child pursuant to sections 39.806(1)(b), 39.806(1)(d)1., 39.806(1)(d)3., 39.806(1)(f), and 39.810, Florida Statutes (2004), and permanently committing the child to the Department for subsequent adoption....

...the Department has proved at least one of the grounds for termination set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2004); and 2) whether the child's manifest best interests would be served by granting the petition to terminate parental rights. See § 39.810, Fla....

...he paramount concern for the child's best interests. Third, the motions contend that our original decision conflicts with Interest of K.W., 891 So.2d at 1068. As to the first and second concerns, the movants note several recent statutory amendments. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2004), begins with the following language: 39.810 Manifest best interests of the child.—In a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child....

...e child. For the purpose of determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: (1) Any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2006), opens with this identical language, but after the above-quoted first sentence in subsection (1), the Florida Legislature has added the following language: However, the availability of a nonadoptive placement w...

...Her rights were terminated, and the child was committed to the Department. See id. at 1069. On appeal, the mother argued, first, that given the child's current residency with a relative, the trial court had failed to consider, pursuant to the "manifest best interests" test in section 39.810(1), Florida Statutes (2002), whether a suitable long-term placement existed with a relative in lieu of termination of parental rights....

...al liberty interest. See M.H., 866 So.2d at 223; L.B., 835 So.2d at 1195. One of the factors to be considered in determining the manifest best interests of the child is "[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child." See § 39.810(1), Fla. Stat. (2004). The trial court had the duty to consider "all relevant factors" before determining whether termination of Appellant's parental rights is in the manifest best interests of the child. See § 39.810, Fla....

...ermination existed under sections 39.01(1) and 39.806(1)(b), (d) and (f), Florida Statutes (2004), and that termination, in order to commit the child to the Department for subsequent adoption, was in the best interests of A.A., within the meaning of section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...Dep't of Children & Family Servs. (In re D.A.), 846 So.2d 1250, 1251-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The circuit court must first find grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and then must consider the manifest best interests of the child under *1271 section 39.810....

...The Department asserted that such conduct on Appellant's part had continued, despite the offer of services, and that the result was that B.W. had remained out of Appellant's custody and care for more than twelve months. Tracking all the relevant factors set forth in section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes (2006), the Department alleged that it is in the child's manifest best interests that parental rights be terminated....

...J.R.S.'s parental rights, finding that J.R.S. failed to comply with his case plan in seven material respects. Thereafter, the order *878 simply stated: "It is manifestly in the best interest of the child to terminate his parental rights pursuant to section 39.810, Fla....

...(1999); see also §§ 39.508(14), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing that upon expiration of the case plan, or sooner if the parents have substantially complied with it, the court shall issue an order to show cause why it should not return the child to the parents); 39.810 (in a termination proceeding, consideration of manifest best interest of the child "shall not include a comparison between the attributes of the parents and those of any persons providing a present or potential placement for the child.")....

...ces to the parents and because “there must be a nexus between the death of little [M.B.] and the parent’s [sic] demonstrated inability to parent in the future.” The trial court declined to reach the manifest best interests analysis required by section 39.810(1)-(11) based on its conclusion that DCF failed to prove grounds for termination as to the mother and failed to satisfy the least restrictive means test as to either parent....

...Clearly, termination of the father’s parental rights was the least restrictive means of protecting E.R. and A.R. 4 Cf. T.L., 990 So.2d at 1273 . *856 4. Manifest best interests of the children Although the trial court stated it was not reaching the manifest best interest factors set forth in section 39.810, the trial court did, in fact, go on to address a few of the statutory considerations. However, the court did not address all of the statutory factors as it was required to do. See § 39.810 (providing that in a hearing on a TPR petition, “the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child”) (emphasis added); A.B....

...However, this court’s case law in A.B. mandates that a trial court must make that determination during a TPR trial, and therefore, we cannot rule on this issue in the first instance but must remand it for the trial court to fully consider all of the factors set forth in section 39.810 and to enter an order evidencing its findings....

...east restrictive means of protecting E.R. and A.R. under the facts of this case. 4. Manifest best interests of the children As with the father, the trial court expressly failed to fully consider all of the manifest best interest factors set forth in section 39.810....

...by "overruling" the "judgments" of the guardian ad litem and expert. The trial court acknowledged and considered both the reports of the guardian ad litem and the expert testimony of Dr. Knobbe, but made its decision by considering all of the evidence and the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...But grounds for termination of parental rights were established under sections 39.806(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2000), *493 as even the dissenting opinion seems to concede, and the trial court has determined that it is in the child's manifest best interest that she be taken from her mother. See § 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000)....

...e for further proceedings, as authorized by section 39.811, Florida Statutes (2000), relating to the trial court's powers of disposition. NOTES [1] The recommendation of the guardian ad litem is one of eleven different relevant factors listed within section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000), for consideration by the trial court....

...to all of her children under section 39.806 by clear and convincing evidence. She also does not contest that termination of her parental rights would be in the -7- manifest best interests of the children, under the considerations required by section 39.810....

...reunify the parent and child. § 39.806(e), Fla. Stat. (2016). Second, Florida Statutes also require that the trial court shall consider “the manifest best interests of the child” by evaluating the relevant factors listed under section 39.810, Florida Statutes. § 39.802(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016). Pursuant to section 39.810, these factors include: (1) Any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child....

...court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. (11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child’s guardian ad litem or legal representative. § 39.810, Fla....

...hild is appropriate and relevant in an analysis of the second prong of the termination of parental rights test, which requires the trial court to consider the manifest best interests of the child by evaluation of the relevant factors listed under section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...ild that would arise from the termination of parental rights and duties. - 19 -  ... (9) The depth of the relationship existing between the child and the present custodian. § 39.810, Fla....

...tment for such use during the three- year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition for termination of parental rights. S.M., 190 So. 3d at 129. It also found that termination was in the manifest best interests of the children under section 39.810, Florida Statutes, and that reunification with S.M....

...999), is present. The issue then is whether the Department of Children and Families proved by clear and convincing evidence the additional requirement that termination is in the manifest best interests of the children. See §§ 39.802(4), 39.809(1), 39.810, Fla. Stat. (1999). The trial court's order states that the court considered all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 in determining the manifest best interests of the children. The trial court made detailed factual findings in its order *307 but specifically made written findings on only three of the eleven factors under section 39.810. Our concern is whether the trial court considered the factor of whether there is a suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the children. See § 39.810(1), Fla....

...In addition, the trial transcript does not reveal any other evidence relating to this issue. Thus, we reverse the termination of parental rights as to the mother and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to consider all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 and enter an appropriate written order with factual findings....

...mily Builders parent training course, F.C. could succeed as a parent, at least with his daughters. On remand, the department should attempt to implement the psychologist's suggestions, where appropriate. Finally we note that the trial court reviewed section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999), which lists factors used to determine whether termination of parental rights is in a child's manifest best interest....

...v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 846 So.2d 1250, 1251-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The circuit court must first find grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and then must consider the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810....

...B.B., 824 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), AND A.B. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, 816 So.2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), NECESSARY TO MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL? 2. IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS TEST STILL APPLICABLE IN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASES IN LIGHT OF SECTION 39.810, FLORIDA STATUTES? AFFIRMED....

...to the child." Id. I fully concur in the result reached by this court in A.B. that section 39.806(1)(i) is constitutional, but respectfully disagree with the creation of a rebuttable presumption in order to make it so. In my view, the provisions of section 39.810, Florida Statutes, make the creation of such a rebuttable presumption unnecessary and make the reasoning in F.L....

...ation of authority to support it. Subsequent to Padgett and in recognition of the overriding importance of protecting the welfare of children, the Florida Legislature in 1994 enacted section 39.4612, Florida Statutes, which was renumbered in 1998 as section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...of the child." (Emphasis added). Section 39.802(4), Florida Statutes, requires that a petition for termination allege the factual grounds for termination under section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810. In every termination case, it is the Department's burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810....

...4th DCA 2002); In re K.M., 788 So.2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); In re K.C.C., 750 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); see also C.C. v. Department of Children & Family Servs., 812 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Failure to properly consider the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810 constitutes reversible error....

...n established; and 2) the Department must establish by clear and convincing evidence, and the trial court must specifically find in the order of termination, that the manifest best interests of the child requires termination of parental rights under section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...has met its burden to present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating parental rights, along with clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child." (Citation omitted). Section 39.810 requires the trial court to consider and evaluate all relevant factors in determining whether termination is in the manifest best interests of the child and specifically lists eleven non-exclusive factors that must be considered in making that determination....

...(5) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the child and the child's parent or parents, siblings, and other relatives, and the degree of harm to the child that would arise from the termination of parental rights and duties. § 39.810(1)-(5), Fla....

...nce a break in the chain of demonstrated parental failure." A.B., 816 So.2d at 686. The court in F.L. held that shifting this burden to the parents makes the statute unconstitutional. In my view, such evidence is subsumed within the factors found in section 39.810 that must be considered by the trial court when the Department attempts to meet its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child....

...For example, in termination proceedings under section 39.806(1)(i), the termination of parental rights to other children that were abused or neglected by the parents must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Next, the trial court must consider under section 39.810(3), whether those same parents now have the capacity to properly care for the child at issue in the current proceedings "to the extent that the child's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health will not be endanger...

...neglect is not a predictor of the parents' treatment of the child at issue. Equally important, in the part of the proceeding where the Department must present evidence to comply with its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence under section 39.810 that the best interests of the child require termination of parental rights, the parents will have the opportunity, if they wish, to present evidence to show that the manifest best interests of the child do not require termination....

...the child's manifest best interests. Moreover, a finding that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child must trump any finding that there may be less restrictive alternatives to termination. In other words, if the court finds under section 39.810 that the manifest best interests of the child require termination, because the best interests of the child trumps parental privilege, there can be no finding that there are less restrictive alternatives to termination. On the other hand, if the trial court finds that the manifest best interests of the child require that termination not be granted, there is no need to consider less restrictive means. I, therefore, conclude that application of section 39.810 renders the less restrictive means test obsolete, unnecessary, and meaningless....

...short of termination should be utilized if such measures can permit the safe re-establishment of the parent-child bond. 824 So.2d at 1009. The "safe re-establishment of the parent-child bond" is one of the factors the trial court must consider under section 39.810, particularly section 39.810(3). Therefore, the least restrictive means test is subsumed in the factors that must be found by clear and convincing evidence to exist under section 39.810. Hence, there is no reason to apply the least restrictive means test any longer and there is no need for a rebuttable presumption in termination cases under section 39.806(1)(i). Because under section 39.810 the Department carries the burden of establishing that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child, the concerns expressed in F.L....

...are virtually nonexistent and are not sufficient grounds to hold section 39.806(1)(i) unconstitutional. In the instant case, the final judgment of termination clearly shows that the trial court properly and adequately considered all relevant factors under section 39.810 and concluded that the manifest best interests of the child require termination....

...(1999), permanently deprive the Mother of any right that she may have to the Child because: a. The Mother lacks the ability and disposition to provide the Child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under state law in lieu of medical care, or other material needs. Section 39.810(2), Fla....

...The Mother has not demonstrated any ability to provide for herself, let alone a Child. b. The Mother lacks the capacity to care for the Child to the extent that the Child's health and well-being will be endangered upon the Child's placement in the home of the Mother. Section 39.810(3), Fla....

...The present mental and physical needs of the Child and future needs of the Child, to the extent that such future needs can be ascertained based upon the present condition of the Child, require termination of the Mother's parental rights and duties. Section 39.810(4), Fla....

...The Child has the ability to form a significant relationship with a parental substitute, and it is likely that the Child will enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of permanent termination of the Mother's parental rights and duties. Section 39.810(7), Fla....

...and his brother, M.R., Jr. H. The Mother's criminal history, her history of drug abuse, the extent of her contact with her other children, terminations *16 on four of her children and her recent Surrender of the child, M.R., Jr. I. The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...d maternal aunt. The GAL finds that the Mother lacks the ability and disposition to provide the Child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under state law in lieu of medical care, or other material needs. Section 39.810(2), Fla....

...The GAL also finds that the Mother lacks the capacity to care for the Child to the extent that the Child's health and well-being will be endangered upon the Child's placement in the home of the Mother. The Mother's incarceration make it impossible for her to overcome this factor. Section 39.810(3), Fla....

...ed based upon the present condition of the Child, do not require the termination of the Mother's parental rights and duties. The child needs the love that the Mother is capable of, as demonstrated by her relationship with some of her other children. Section 39.810(4) and (5), Fla....

...Finally, the GAL finds that though the child has the ability to form a significant *17 relationship with a parental substitute, it is not likely that the Child will enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of permanent termination of the Mother's parental rights and duties. Section 39.810(7), Fla....

...The Child is with his father who has no intentions of marrying or offering this Child a substitute mother figure and is advocating for a relationship between the Mother and the Child. The child has been living with his father in a stable, satisfactory environment; this continuity should be maintained. Section 39.810(8), Florida Statutes (1999). There is no need to terminate the mother's parental rights in order to maintain this stability for the child. The father-son relationship presently existing between the child and his father appears to be strong, healthy and full of love. Section 39.810(9)....

...The mere fact that a relative is available for placement does not mean that DCF cannot prove that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child. See Guardian Ad Litem Program v. T.R., 987 So.2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that under section 39.810(1), Florida Statutes, the availability of a nonadoptive placement with a relative could be considered, but could not be given greater weight than any other factor, as the focus should be on the best interests of the child); N.S....

...1) One or more of the grounds for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2014), has been established by clear and convincing evidence; 2) Termination is in the manifest best interest of the child under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2014); and 3) Termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm. J.G....

...substantially comply with the case plan. The trial court found that DCF had established three grounds for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2014), by clear and convincing evidence, and that termination was in the manifest best interest of the children under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 846 So.2d 1250, 1251-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The trial court must then find that the Department proved a statutory ground for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810....

...termination. W.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 15 So.3d 866, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The court must first find grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and then consider the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810....

...In a proceeding for termination of parental rights, the court must determine by *917 clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds for termination of parental rights exist under section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2003). The court must then consider the manifest best interests of the child, pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2003)....

...r the Department proved the asserted grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence, and then it must determine whether the manifest best interests of the child would be served by termination, again under the same evidentiary standard. See § 39.810....

...She did not specify what “change in behavior” N.F. had failed to make, or how that failure had been manifested. At one point during the case manager’s testimony, the Department’s attorney posed a litany of questions that simply parroted the manifest best interests factors set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2010). For example: Q. Has the mother demonstrated the ability or disposition to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under state law? See § 39.810(2). The case manager answered this and the other questions derived from section 39.810 with a simple “no.” 1 The Department did not elicit any facts that would explain the case manager’s negative conclusions....

...SILBERMAN, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur. . We will not detail all the questions the Department asked the case manager based on the manifest best interest factors, but we note that they involved inquiries that basically parroted subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of section 39.810.

...ion of the period of time before the child reaches the age of majority. Once a trial court concludes that the future period of incarceration is a sufficient basis to support termination, then it must consider the child's manifest best interests. See § 39.810....

...nce that a termination of the parent's rights is the least restrictive means of protecting a child from harm. See J.F. v. Dep't of Children and Families, 890 So.2d 434, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The Department is required to prove all the elements in section 39.810 to determine whether it is in the manifest best interests of the child to have the parent's rights terminated....

...child's best interest. The court observed that the mother's future good intentions could not overcome her past neglect, abandonment, and other failures. As in D.N.O., there was no competent substantial evidence to support denial of termination here. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2001), sets out eleven factors which the court is required to consider where termination of parental rights is at issue. One of the factors is: The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. § 39.810(10)....

...II in October 1999 and continued through the time of the adjudicatory hearing in April 2004, interrupted only by the Father's incarcerations, which only contributed to his abandonment of the children. These facts support the trial court's finding that the abuse was "chronic" under section 39.806(1)(g). SECTION 39.810 The Father contends that termination was not in the children's manifest best interests because he cared for them while the mother worked, never abused them, and provided for them when financially able. We find no basis to disturb the trial court's factual findings to the contrary or its other findings under section 39.810(1)(11)....

...rially breached his case plan. See T.H. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 979 So.2d 1075, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The trial court then determined that the termination of the Father's parental rights was in the son's manifest best interest under section 39.810 because the evidence showed the Father failed to demonstrate the capacity to care for the son and the son had a suitable and lengthy living arrangement with a maternal aunt who wished to pursue adoption. Yet the trial court ignored evidence that the Father adequately cared for the son from August 2005 to January 2007, when the Father had sole custody of the son. See § 39.810(3), (4). The trial court also ignored the strong emotional bond that developed between the Father and the son, instead noting that the Father did not appear to have any contact with his son since his removal in early 2007. § 39.810(5)....

...tection of children in an environment that fosters healthy social, emotional, intellectual, and physical development; to ensure secure and safe custody; and to promote the health and well-being of all children under the state's care"); § 39.001(3); § 39.810 (pertaining to proceedings to terminate parental rights and requiring the trial court to consider "the manifest best interests of the child"); see B.Y....

...improve. See id. at 222-23. In addition to providing a statutory ground, the second requirement before parental rights may be terminated is a showing by the Department that termination is in the child’s manifest best interest pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes. The third and final requirement is that to pass constitutional muster, termination of parental rights must meet the least restrictive means test....

...2d at 999-1000. Second Requirement — Manifest Best Interest The second requirement was for the Department to prove termination of parental rights was in the child’s manifest best interest. There are eleven manifest best interest factors to be considered under section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...Once the Department of Children and Family Services ("the Department") has proven any one of the grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court must consider whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of the child, considering the factors listed in section 39.810. [1] See C.K. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 942 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also § 39.810, Fla....

...had been terminated, remained unchanged. We conclude that the trial court acted reasonably in finding, due to the likelihood of prospective abuse under 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of J.M. See §§ 39.810(1)-(11), Fla....

...could not see 25 loop marks on [S.B.] or be aware of the pain the child [Ed.M.] must have experienced with his fracture." In addition to the grounds for termination, the record reflects that the trial court also took into account the manifest best interests of the child. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes, provides various factors the trial court must consider when evaluating the manifest best interests of a child, including alternative permanent custody arrangements with relatives, the capacity of the parent to care f...

...litem. Further, Department must establish that termination is the least restrictive means by which to protect the child. Padgett v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991). But see T.P. (where the court suggests that section 39.810, Florida Statutes, "renders the less restrictive means test obsolete, unnecessary, and meaningless")....

...rental rights may be the least restrictive means available. In the Interest of T.M., 641 So.2d 410, 413 (Fla.1994). The court found Department met its burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence and considering the applicable provisions of section 39.810, Florida Statutes, that termination of parental rights was in the child's manifest best interest and the least restrictive means of protecting the child....

...The Manifest Best Interests of the Child Reversal of the denial of a termination petition is warranted when the denial is not in the child’s best interest. See C.F., 788 So. 2d at 988; Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. A.Q., 937 So. 2d 1156, 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2017), sets out eleven factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interest of the child....

...o be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. (11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child’s guardian ad litem or legal representative. § 39.810(1)-(11) (emphasis added)....

...mother “later.” This was, according to the child’s testimony, because the parents were living together and the child conditioned her desire to return home upon the father being honest about the touching and receiving therapy to control himself and stop touching her. See § 39.810(10)....

...m). While the record clearly supports the trial court’s finding that the parents can provide for the child’s material needs, including food, shelter, tutoring, therapy and martial arts training, the language of the statute is mandatory. Section 39.810 states that “the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but 21 not limited to” the enumerated eleven factors. § 39.810 (emphasis added)....

...an order finding that the father sexually abused the child. Further, we remand for an evidentiary hearing and for entry of an order, within thirty days, addressing the manifest best interests of the child and including factual findings in accordance with the eleven factors set forth section 39.810 as well as whether the termination of parental rights as to the father is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm. Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s f...

...In that situation, however, “[a]d-judicatory hearings for petitions for voluntary termination must be held within 21 days after the filing of the petition.’ ” § 39.808(4), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis added). We also have recognized that a circuit court considering the child’s best interests under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2008), may deny a petition for termination of parental rights where termination “would cut off any responsibility for financial support and would leave the child without a father.” Rathburn v....

...We therefore conclude that the trial court's findings, that termination of the father's parental rights is not in the children's best interest is unsupported by the record. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See § 39.810, Fla....

...Notwithstanding the court’s findings regarding the father’s non-compliance, the court praised the father’s efforts subsequent to the case plan. The court then made a manifest best interest finding but only as it related to the mother. The court considered the factors in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, and made the following findings, which we summarize as follows: a) The only suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child is with the father....

...There is a two-step statutory process to terminate parental rights. First, the trial court must find a ground for termination under section 39.806. See Rathburn v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 826 So.2d 521, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Second, the court must consider under section 39.810 what is in the manifest best interest of the child based upon all the relevant criteria....

...Once a court determines, as it did here, that a ground for termination of parental rights has been proved, section 89.810, Florida Statutes, requires that “[i]n a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child.” (emphasis added). Section 39.810 further provides that “[f]or the purpose of determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors....” While the trial court conducted the manifest best interest determinat...

...(10) The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. (11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child’s guardian ad litem or legal representative. § 39.810, Fla....

...ave been terminated. That is a separate issue. To prevail in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, the Department must prove the existence of a statutory ground and establish that termination would be in the manifest best interest of the child. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2006) provides that the court may consider a relative placement in determining whether termination is in the child's best interest....

...Father argues that his due process rights were violated because the trial court terminated his parental rights based on a ground A.B. (“Mother”) did not plead in the petition. Father also argues that the order was facially insufficient because it did not consider the statutorily required factors under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...On remand, the trial court can only terminate based on grounds pleaded in the petition or those tried by consent, if any. We also reverse because the trial court’s order is facially insufficient for failing to include findings for the statutory factors in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2014), to determine if it was in the child’s manifest best interests to terminate parental rights....

the eleven manifest best interest factors in section 39.810. Those findings either weighed in favor of

...Although additional evidence may be needed to determine the issue of least restrictive means, our primary concern is the trial court’s failure to obtain updated information before making a determination of the manifest best interests of each child under section 39.810. In the two original orders, the trial court had made findings on each of the eleven factors described in section 39.810 based on the conditions at the time of the orders in June 2010 when the twins were about twenty months old....

...hen it actually terminated parental rights. It is useful to consider that a manifest best interests decision is not made to protect the legal rights of the parents; it is made to ensure the best interests of each child. When making an analysis under section 39.810, the trial court should reach its decision and state its findings based on evidence that is sufficiently current to support the decision and findings in the order of termination....

...best interest. In order to terminate parental rights, a trial court must determine that termination of the parent's parental rights would be in the best interests of the child. K.W. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 959 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2007), provides a non-exhaustive list of factors a trial court is to consider when determining whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of a child....

...ility of a nonadoptive placement with a relative may not receive greater consideration than any other factor weighing on the manifest best interest of the child and may not be considered as a factor weighing against termination of parental rights. " § 39.810(1), Fla....

...erests of the child, we read the order under review as stating that the trial court based its finding that termination of parental rights was not in C.W.'s best interests solely on the availability of a relative placement, in direct contravention of section 39.810(1). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the trial court shall again weigh all relevant factors, including those under section 39.810, to determine whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of C.W....

...also be filed when a child has been adjudicated dependent, a case plan has been filed with the court, and the child continues to be abused, neglected, or abandoned by the parents." The trial court also found, based on the eleven factors contained in section 39.810, that termination was in the manifest best interests of the children....

...[1] To support the termination of parental rights, the Department must prove by clear and convincing evidence one of the grounds for termination contained in section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...re not verified by the Department and the other allegations did not provide clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the Mother did not benefit from the case plan tasks. Next, the trial court made findings, pursuant to section 39.810, that termination of the Mother's parental rights was in the manifest best interests of the children....

...indings concerning manifest best interests. Those four findings are as follows: (1) "[t]he biological parents do not have the ability or disposition to provide the necessary food, clothing, medical care, or other material needs of the children," see § 39.810(2); (2) "[t]he biological parents do not have the capacity to care for the children and the children's safety, well[-]being and physical, mental and emotional health would be endangered if the children were returned to the custody of the biological parents," see § 39.810(3); (3) the children's "present and future mental and physical health needs require care by the childrens' [sic] custodian, which the biological parents are not able to provide," see § 39.810(4); and (4) "[t]here are limited emotional ties between the children and the biological mother," see § 39.810(5)....

...Sevs, 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991). And “because parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest, the state must establish in each case that termination of those rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.” Id. Section 39.810(1), Florida Statutes, provides that “the availability of a ......

...ration. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating J.R.'s rights. The department also points out that the court did not consider the eleven factors used in determining whether the child's manifest best interest would be served by termination. See § 39.810....

...on. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating J.R.’s rights. The department also points out that the court did not consider the eleven factors used in determining whether the child’s manifest best interest would be served by termination. See § 39.810....

the manifest best interest of the child under section 39.810. Rathburn v. Dep’t of Children & Families

...appeals an order terminating her parental rights. She raises several arguments on appeal, only one of which has merit. She contends that there was no evidence that termination of her parental rights was in the manifest best interest of her child, as per section 39.810, Florida Statutes. We agree, and reverse and remand for a new hearing. Section 39.810 sets out eleven factors to be considered in determining if termination is in the manifest best interests of the child....

...court's finding that the statutory grounds for termination of their parental rights under section 39.806(1)(e), Florida Statutes, were established by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence further supported the trial court's determination under section 39.810 that it was in the manifest best interest of the child to terminate the parental rights of the parents....

...interests of the children required termination of K.W.'s parental rights. Cf. C.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 812 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) ("We nevertheless remand for reconsideration of A.C.'s best interests, in accordance with section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000), because the fact findings in the order under review are erroneous and incomplete.")....

...The termination of his parental rights and duties to [S.C.] is the least restrictive means of protecting her from harm. She has not seen her father since she was months old [sic] and she does not know who he is. 7 The court then reviewed the factors in section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes, regarding the manifest best interests of the child....

...Thus, to terminate a parent’s rights in his or her child, the state must first meet the statutory requirements to prove a statutory ground for termination and prove that termination is in the manifest best interest of the child. See §§ 39.806, 39.810, Fla....

...will be incarcerated for a significant portion of S.C.’s minority. Whether termination is in the manifest best interest of the child Next, the trial court must find that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child. In making this determination, section 39.810, Florida Statutes, sets forth a list of non-exclusive relevant factors, which the trial court took into account: (1) Any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child....

...ion, the child continued to be abused, neglected, or abandoned by Appellant, in that she had failed to comply substantially with the case plan in five material respects. The petition stated that Department would show, using the criteria set forth in section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes (2007), that it is in the child's manifest best interests for Appellant's parental rights to be terminated and for the child to be permanently committed to Department's custody for subsequent adoption....

...Although she completed some of the case plan requirements by the time of trial, more than four years after DCF sheltered the child, the evidence clearly showed J.C. failed to remedy the problems that caused her child to be sheltered. The trial court concluded, after evaluating the evidence in light of the factors in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2007), that termination of parental rights was in the manifest best interests of the child....

...and remand this case to the lower court for further proceedings to allow the parties to offer additional testimony relating to L.K.'s alleged attempts to substantially comply with her case plan. Reversed and Remanded. WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The factors are set forth under section 39.810, Florida Statutes.

...st restrictive means. See Padgett v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991). The termination court is required to consider the manifest best interests of the child before ordering a termination of parental rights. See § 39.810, Fla....

...were doing a good job taking care of the children, and desired to adopt the children, the parents had the right to interview them, talk to their neighbors, check law enforcement records, and investigate whether in fact they were good people. The Department noted that under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2002), when considering the manifest best interests of the children, the trial court was not permitted to make a comparison between the attributes of the parents and those of any people providing a present or potential placement for the children....

...A petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) must contain facts supporting the allegation that at least one of the grounds listed in section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2002) has been met and that "the manifest best interests of the child, in accordance with s. 39.810, would be served by the granting of the petition." § 39.802(4)(a) & (c), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 39.810 provides that in a hearing on a TPR petition, "the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child"; the statute further states that "[t]his consideration shall not include a comparison between the attributes of the paren...

...acement for the child." The focus in a termination case is on the deficiencies of a parent that may *321 justify the termination of parental rights. If a ground for termination of parental rights exists under section 39.806, the quoted language from section 39.810 indicates that an evaluation of a foster parent's qualities is not material to the termination decision....

...We do observe, however, that in both criminal and DOM cases the court was careful not to allow the presumption of validity of the judgment to inflict adverse consequences on collateral property interests. We must not forget that the overriding concern in TPR cases is for the best interests of the child, not the parents. § 39.810, Fla....

...Appellant, C.D.M., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. It appears that sufficient proof was presented to support a determination that the parental rights of Appellant should be terminated. However, we cannot conduct an appropriate appellate review because the *410 statutory factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, are not addressed in the written order and the trial court did not make any oral findings as to these factors at the hearing....

...The order on appeal is also silent as to whether termination of Appellant’s parental rights was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from future harm. We therefore reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for entry of an order containing the necessary findings of fact pursuant to section 39.810 and for reconsideration of any less restrictive alternatives before any final determination is reached with respect to termination....

...elements required for termination. Each of these elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence before the petition is granted.”). Second, the Department must show that termination is in C.B.'s manifest best interests. See § 39.810, Fla....

...from the only people who have loved her as parents and ultimately place her in the hands of a biological father who has demonstrated no interest in L.C. during the vast majority of her young life, and is presently unable to provide adequate care . . . . ”); § 39.810(7), Fla....

...and Families (“Department”) established by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination exist, specifically sections 39.806(1)(e)(1) and 39.806(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2014); termination is in the manifest best interest of the children, see § 39.810, Fla....

...Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 846 So.2d 1250, 1251-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The circuit court must first find grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and then must consider the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810....

manifest best interest of the child pursuant to section 39.810, and the termination of the parental rights

...D.P.'s skull is growing through and penetrating her optic nerve. S.S. has serious anger management problems. But she expressed the view that all of these children were adoptable, agreeing with the six case-workers *682 and the former GAL that adoption is appropriate. The judge concluded that under section 39.810, it would not be in the manifest best interest of the children to terminate P.K.'s parental rights....

...In its written order, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that P.K. had failed to comply with all significant requirements of her case plan, i.e., housing, stable employment and refraining from cohabiting with men who posed a danger to her children. The court considered the eleven factors in section 39.810 and found they all supported termination, save one: the depth of attachment between the mother, P.K., and the children, and the desire of three of the children to return home....

...l, mental, and emotional health presently and for the foreseeable future. However, the court expressly stated that it did not find clear and convincing evidence that it was in the manifest best interests of the children pursuant to the factors under section 39.810 to terminate K.F.'s parental rights....

...On appeal, DCF argues that it proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children's manifest best interests. We agree with appellant that the trial court's finding that it is not in the manifest best interests of the children to terminate K.F.'s parental rights pursuant to the factors in section 39.810 is not supported by competent substantial *950 evidence and, in fact, is contrary to the evidence presented at trial....

...when the denial is not supported by competent substantial evidence and is not in the best interests of the children. Dep't of Children and Families v. A.D., 904 So.2d 480, 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). In this case, the trial court's finding pursuant to section 39.810(3) that K.F....

...The parties could also submit additional testimony. Based upon that agreement, the parties dismissed the appeal. After the new hearing on the manifest best interests, the trial court again entered its order terminating the father's parental rights. Addressing each of the factors listed in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2008), the court found that there was no suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of S.E....

...ng in June 2011. The State recalled the current case manager, who testified that termination was in N.R.-G.’s manifest best interests. Counsel for the Department then asked the case manager whether each of the best interest factors as set forth in section 39.810 was satisfied in this case....

...The mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. It appears sufficient proof was presented to support a determination that the parental rights of the mother should be terminated. We cannot, however, conduct appropriate appellate review because the statutory factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2005), are not addressed in either the order or the transcript....

...section 39.806(1)(e) of the Florida Statutes (2001). However, K.O. argues, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court failed to set forth in its termination order findings of fact relating to the best interest of the child as required by section 39.810 of the Florida Statutes (2001)....

...t better than the case plan failure ground because appellant was incapable of taking care of E.R.'s needs. The trial court subsequently addressed the factors to be considered in determining whether termination was in E.R.'s best interest pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...The trial court apparently concluded that proof of any of the statutory grounds under section 39.806 is enough to terminate parental rights. That view ignores the additional requirement that termination must be in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...a trial court is "prevented from comparing the birth parents' choice of prospective adoptive parents with other potential placements that the court or the Department might choose for the child." S.C.W., 912 So. 2d at 373 n.4. However, the court relied on section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2004), which provided that the court consider the manifest best interests of the child and that "[t]his consideration shall not include a comparison between the attributes of the parents and those of any persons providing a present or potential placement for the child." See id. (emphasis added) (quoting § 39.810). That inapplicable clause describes the standard that a court must utilize "[i]n a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights," see § 39.810—not a motion to intervene and transfer custody under section 63.082, the terms of which, as explained above, compel a comparative analysis between the child's current placement in a prospective adoptive home and the home of the prospectiv...

...ion of A.P.’s parental rights and that TPR was the least restrictive means to protect all four children from additional harm. The court also found TPR was in the manifest best interests of M.D. and M.D., Jr., considering all the elements listed in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2019). Yet considering the greater mental health needs of J.F....

...She repeats her 2 challenge to the trial court’s finding the two statutory grounds for TPR and that TPR was the least restrictive means to protect J.F. and F.S. Finally, A.P. challenges the court’s determination on rehearing and under section 39.810 that termination of her parental rights to J.F....

...Stat. (2019). DCF alleged sections 39.806(1)(c) and 39.806(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2019), as grounds for TPR. DCF also alleged that TPR was the least restrictive means to protect the children and was in the children’s manifest best interests under section 39.810. First Statutory Ground for TPR — § 39.806(1)(c) The trial court found the evidence clear and convincing that A.P....

...shows no deficiency in the evidence to support the trial court’s finding. 8  Manifest Best Interests of M.D. and M.D., Jr. Turning to the manifest best interests of M.D. and M.D., Jr., the trial court made particular findings under each statutory factor listed in section 39.810(1)–(11) in the first order on appeal. Weighing the statutory facts, the court found the evidence clear and convincing that TPR was in the manifest best interests of both M.D....

...F. and F.S. Finally, A.P. appeals the trial court’s determination of the manifest best interests of J.F. and F.S. in the order entered November 23, 2020. But A.P. does not contest specific statutory factors addressed by the trial court under section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

....’s ability to support the children has financially improved and stabilized since the children were resheltered. The trial court’s order on rehearing included detailed findings of the manifest best interests factors for J.F. and F.S. under section 39.810(1)–(11)....

...A.L., 307 So. 3d 978, 982–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). A.P. establishes no deficiency in the evidence to support the trial court’s determination of the manifest best interests of J.F. and F.S. upon evaluation of the statutory factors listed in section 39.810 and as expressed in the written order on rehearing....

...Likewise, A.P. establishes no error in the trial court’s finding that TPR is the least restrictive means to protect all four children under the circumstances of this case, and that TPR is in the manifest best interests of M.D. and M.D., Jr., under section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...that the well-being and safety of the child will not be endangered upon the child’s . . . being returned to the child’s parent.” § 39.01(84) Fla. Stat. (2018). The trial court thoughtfully considered all the relevant testimony and factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes....

...In that situation, however, "[adjudicatory hearings for petitions for voluntary termination must be held within 21 days after the filing of the petition.'" § 39.808(4), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis added). We also have recognized that a circuit court considering the child's best interests under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2008), may deny a petition for termination of parental rights where termination "would cut off any responsibility for financial support and would leave the child without a father." Rathburn v....

...is, because DCF is coming” by [Y.H.B.] at the hospital in July 2018, and any explanations for the abuse given subsequently were designed to do just that, and not to protect [J.W.H.]. The court considered the factors set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, and found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the manifest best interests of J.W.H....

...First, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one of the grounds set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2007), has been established. Second, the court shall consider the manifest best interest of the child by evaluation of all relevant factors, including those set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...that termination of parental rights was the only way to protect the children. Finally, the mother contends that termination was not in the manifest best interests of the children, as they have a strong bond with the mother, who is very involved in the children’s care. Pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2020), the trial court made detailed findings on the factors relevant to the manifest best interests of the children, including the bond between the mother and the children....

analysis using the eleven-factor test required by section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2019). After making these

...o terminate H.P.’s parental rights. The circuit court found that H.P. had failed to complete the tasks in her case plan — a finding H.P. does not dispute — and concluded that H.P. had abandoned her children. Additionally, using the criteria in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2003), the circuit court found termination was in the manifest best interest of the children....

...We hold that termination was not the least restrictive means of protecting the children from harm. In so doing, we emphasize that the constitutional protections afforded a parent are so important that a court cannot overlook them in attempting to satisfy the child’s manifest best interests pursuant to section 39.810....

...and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. NORTHCUTT and CANADY, JJ, concur. . The circuit court inadvertently cited section 39.806 as its basis for performing its manifest best interest analysis, but it is clear the court appropriately used the criteria found in section 39.810....

...ing to appear and/or "abandoned" the child, as that term is defined in sections 39.806(1)(b) & 39.01(1), Florida Statutes. (2007); and that the manifest best interest of the child called for the termination of Appellant's parental rights pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...parental rights pursuant to section 39.806(l)(e). See M.S. v. Department of Children and Families, 765 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Further, the order of termination reflects that the trial court expressly considered all of the factors outlined in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1998 Supp.). We conclude no error in the trial court’s finding that it was in the manifest best interests of the children to terminate appellant’s parental rights. § 39.810, Fla....

...Accordingly, we reverse the order. On remand, as to Z.C., the trial court should make findings. As to the other children, and as to Z.C., if the trial court finds that Father abandoned Z.C., the trial court should consider the best interest of the children. See § 39.810, Fla....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 39.810(1), Fla....

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. November 19, 2008. Steven Grossbard, for appellant. Karla Perkins, Miami; Hillary S. Kambour, for appellees. Before SUAREZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 39.810(1), Fla....

...the manifest best interest of the child and the correct application of the least restrictive means test. S.S. argues that in view of the fact that the child is currently living with a relative, the trial court failed to give proper consideration to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2002), which requires the trial court to consider and evaluate the manifest best interest of the child....

...The minor child(ren) to whom.....(parent's(s') name(s))..... parental rights are being terminated are at substantial risk of significant harm. Termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect the child(ren) from harm. 6. Under the provisions of sections 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes, it is in the manifest best interests of the child(ren) for parental rights of.....(name(s))........

...The guardian ad litem,.....(name)....., ..... agrees ..... does not agree that it is in the best interest of the child(ren) for parental rights to be terminated in this cause. COMMENT: Guardian ad litem not required in voluntary surrender. 7. Under the provisions of sections 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes, it is in the manifest best interest of the child(ren) for parental rights to be terminated for the following reasons: .....(findings as to each statutory factor)........

...Changes include a check-off list of those present for the hearing, breaking the finding on execution of voluntary surrenders into separate paragraphs for the mother and father, and adding each specific finding that the court is required to make under section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes (2008)....

manifest best interests of the children under section 39.810.2 §§ 39.802(4), 39.809(1). In order to protect

...999), is present. The issue then is whether the Department of Children and Families proved by clear and convincing evidence the additional requirement that termination is in the manifest best interests of the children. See §§ 39.802(4), 39.809(1), 39.810, Fla. Stat. (1999). The trial court’s order states that the court considered all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 in determining the manifest best interests of the children. The trial court made detailed factual findings in its order *307 but specifically made written findings on only three of the eleven factors under section 39.810. Our concern is whether the trial court considered the factor of whether there is a suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the children. See § 39.810(1), Fla....

...In addition, the trial transcript does not reveal any other evidence relating to this issue. Thus, we reverse the termination of parental rights as to the mother and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to consider all of the statutory factors under section 39.810 and enter an appropriate written order with factual findings....

...Even where the grounds for termination are proven, the court still must determine whether termination of parental rights is in the child’s manifest best interests. Id. As to the child’s manifest best interests, while the trial court addressed each statutory factor in section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes (2018), there was no competent substantial evidence to support several key findings....

...ve placement, in direct contravention of section 39.801(1)." Guardian Ad Litem Program v. T.R., 987 So.2d 1269, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). We remanded to the trial court, directing the court to "again weigh all relevant factors, including those under section 39.810, to determine whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interests of C.W." Id. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a detailed order applying the facts of this *1043 case to the factors enumerated in section 39.810(1) and again concluded that termination of T.R.'s parental rights was not in C.W.'s best interests....

...hat [C.W.], while still very young, suffered broken ribs while in the sole care of the mother and stepfather, for which [C.W.] received no treatment or medical attention." Nonetheless, the court concluded, after considering the factors enumerated in section 39.810, that "it is not in the manifest best interest of this child to have parental rights terminated and be placed for adoption." The court found that C.W....

is in the child’s manifest best interests. See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“In a

...s required for termination. Each of these elements must be established by clear and convincing evidence before the petition is granted.”). Second, the Department must show that termination is in the child’s manifest best interests. See § 39.810, Fla....

...Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 846 So.2d 1250, 1251-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The trial court must then find that the Department proved a statutory ground for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810....

consider the child’s manifest best interests. See § 39.810. Here, the trial court considered all of the statutory

...4th DCA 2021). So far, the Florida Supreme Court has declined review. 12 children and it narrowly applies in situations where there is egregious conduct. 4. Manifest Best Interests of the Three Siblings (§ 39.810) Although proof of a nexus between egregious conduct and potential harm to a sibling is not required for termination under section 39.806(1)(f), the trial court must still engage in a manifest best interests inquiry pursuant to § 39.810....

...that threatens the life, safety, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child or the child's sibling.’” V.S., 322 So. 3d at 1160 (quoting § 39.806(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2020)). The Mother, relying on V.S., argues the trial court failed to make an individualized analysis of the eleven factors in § 39.810 as to each of the Three Siblings....

...to the siblings “stating that proof of a nexus between the conduct against [the abused child] and the potential harm to his siblings was not required.” 322 So. 3d at 1163. The Department likewise failed to offer proof of the factors listed in § 39.810 13 “apparently taking the same position as the trial court that proof of substantial risk of significant harm to the siblings was unnecessary. Id. Here, by contrast, the trial court made detailed findings as to each of the eleven factors in § 39.810....

...For example, the first factor looks at whether there is “[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child.” Here, all Three Siblings were living with their paternal grandmother. Importantly, proof of the factors in § 39.810 was presented below and support the trial court’s findings....

...reasonable efforts to reunify the siblings with the mother. Thus, termination was the least restrictive means to protect the children. Finally, in determining the children’s manifest best interests, the court addressed the enumerated factors under section 39.810(1)–(11), Florida Statutes (2020)....

...First, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one statutory ground under section 39.806 has been established. S.M. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 202 So. 3d 769, 776 (Fla. 2016). Next, the court must evaluate the relevant factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, to determine whether termination is in the manifest best interests of the child....

...e their remaining children”). C. Manifest Best Interests 10  The trial court also relied on the language eliminating the proof of a nexus in section 39.806(1)(f) in its manifest best interests analysis. Section 39.810(1)–(11), Florida Statutes (2020), requires the court to consider all relevant factors before making a manifest best interests decision....

...factors because of the elimination of proof of a nexus between the egregious conduct to one child and the risk of harm to the siblings of that child. However, two statutory manifest best interests factors could involve some analysis of the impact of egregious conduct by the parent. See § 39.810(3) and (4), Fla....

...parent/child relationship.” The trial court merely recited the injuries to K.M.4, and then as to his siblings, simply stated that proof of a nexus between the conduct against K.M.4 and potential harm was not required. 2 The Department must prove all the elements listed in section 39.810 for the trial court to make the manifest best interests determination. Interest of C.E., 263 So....

...The Department failed to offer that proof, apparently taking the same position as the trial court that proof of substantial risk of significant harm to the siblings was unnecessary. 1 The elimination of the nexus requirement arguably reduces the trial court’s scope of analysis as to section 39.810(3), Florida Statutes (2020). However, section 39.810(4), Florida Statutes (2020), requires consideration of “[t]he present mental and physical health needs of the child and such future needs of the child to the extent that such future needs can be ascertained based on the present condi...

...Dep’t of Children & Families, 959 So.2d 401, 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“[T]he possibility of a relative placement is plainly not a reason to delay a decision to terminate parental rights if termination is otherwise in the manifest best interest of the child.”); § 39.810(1), Fla....

in the child’s manifest best interests under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2024); and (3) termination

...nce supports the trial court’s final judgment[.]” J.P. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 183 So. 3d 1198, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). The trial court determines the child’s manifest best interests by balancing eleven factors listed in section 39.810, Florida 2 Statutes....

...(10) The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference; (11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child’s guardian ad litem or legal representative. § 39.810, Fla....

...does not mean that no alternative to termination of parental rights is conceivable by a court.” J.P., 183 So. 3d at 1204-05. Also, the statute provides that adoption, not permanent guardianship, is the preferred goal if reunification is not feasible. § 39.810, Fla....

...5th DCA 2001) (holding that section 39.806(1)(d) did not apply to a parent who had already started serving his prison sentence prior to the effective date prescribed by statute). Manifest best interest of the child J.T. also challenges the trial court’s finding under section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000), that termination was in the manifest best interest of T.B....

...Finding that termination is in the manifest best interest of the child is an essential predicate for the termination of parental rights. J.L.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 750 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We agree that the trial court’s findings under section 39.810 were flawed. In considering whether termination is in the best interest of a child, section 39.810 requires the trial court to consider, among other things, whether there is any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child....

...II in October 1999 and continued through the time of the adjudicatory hearing in April 2004, interrupted only by the Father’s incarcerations, which only contributed to his abandonment of the children. These facts support the trial court’s finding that the abuse was “chronic” under section 39.806(l)(g). SECTION 39.810 The Father contends that termination was not in the children’s manifest best interests because he cared for them while the mother worked, never abused them, and provided for them when financially able. We find no basis to disturb the trial court’s factual findings to the contrary or its other findings under section 39.810(1)-(11)....

...trictive means. See Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991). The termination court is required to consider the manifest best interests of the child before ordering a termination of parental rights. See § 39.810, Fla....

...ached his case plan. See T.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 979 So.2d 1075, 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). The trial court then determined that the termination of the Father’s parental rights was in the son’s manifest best interest under section 39.810 because the evidence showed the Father failed to demonstrate the capacity to care for the son and the son had a suitable and lengthy living arrangement with a maternal aunt who wished to pursue adoption. Yet the trial court ignored evidence that the Father adequately cared for the son from August 2005 to January 2007, when the Father had sole custody of the son. See § 39.810(3), (4). The trial court also ignored the strong emotional bond that developed between the Father and the son, instead noting that the Father did not appear to have any contact with his son since his removal in early 2007. § 39.810(5)....

...ation order were not supported by the record. C.C. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 812 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Our opinion stated that, on remand, the trial court was to reconsider “A.C.’s best interests, in accordance with section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000)....” Id....

...Thereafter, the trial court entered an order styled “Order on Disposition of Manifest Best Interest Hearing” in which it set forth a six paragraph “statement of facts to be true.” Unfortunately, the trial court did not address, directly or indirectly, the factors outlined in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2000). Because the trial court did not specifically address the factors set forth in section 39.810, it did not comply with this court’s mandate....

...ably positive emotional stability, psychological insight, and freedom from psychopathology.” The order on appeal is accordingly reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court to consider, expressly and specifically, the factors outlined in section 39.810....

...at least one statutory ground under section 39.806, Florida Statutes, has been established. J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 22 So. 3d 774, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Next, the court must evaluate relevant factors, including those enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, to determine whether termination is in the manifest best interest of the child....

...opportunity to assume those duties while imprisoned"). Further, termination of an incarcerated parent's rights when -2-  another parent retains custody, which is permitted under section 39.810(3), Florida Statutes, would in many cases be contrary to the child's best interests if the custodial parent facilitates contact with the incarcerated parent. In sum, termination cannot rest exclusively on the length of incarceration....

...1st DCA 2005)). We agree with the trial court that clear and convincing evidence supported TPR of the mother’s rights under section 39.806(1)(e)1. However, we disagree with the trial court’s determination that TPR was not in the children’s manifest best interests. Manifest best interests are addressed in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2018), which provides: In a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child....

...confirming the great-grandmother was in good health. 4 and elderly.” Presumably, the trial court believed the children could possibly be placed with a different relative. This should not have been part of the trial court’s decision on TPR as section 39.810(1) provides: If a child has been in a stable or preadoptive placement for not less than 6 months, the availability of a different placement, including a placement with a relative, may not be considered as a ground to d...

...sleeping" is not crucial to this court's opinion. - 18 -  Manifest Interest and Least Restrictive Means The Department is required to prove all of the elements listed in section 39.810 in order for the trial court to determine whether terminating the parent's rights is in the manifest best interests of the child....

...ntal rights filed under this chapter must contain facts supporting the following allegations: (a) That at least one of the grounds listed in s. 39.806 has been met. [[Image here]] (c) That the manifest best interests of the child, in accordance with s. 39.810, would be served by the granting of the petition. 1 Section 39.810 requires that in “determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but not limited to” the various specific factors enumerated in the section. Among the specific enumerated factors the trial court must consider is whether there is “[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child.” § 39.810(1)....

...� An order terminating parental rights therefore must be supported by clear and convincing evidence both that there is a ground for termination under *483 section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...In the instant case, the trial court correctly determined there was clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the grounds for termination under section 39.806 existed. The trial court’s error here relates to its evaluation of the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...Accordingly, the judgment terminating V.W.’s parental rights is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall consider and evaluate “all relevant factors” concerning the manifest best interests of the child as required by section 39.810 — including the existence of “[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child” — and shall base its ruling only on facts that are established by clear and convincing evidence....

...Appellant, C.D.M., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. It appears that sufficient proof was presented to support a determination that the parental rights of Appellant should be terminated. However, we cannot conduct an appropriate appellate review because the *410 statutory factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes, are not addressed in the written order and the trial court did not make any oral findings as to these factors at the hearing....

...The order on appeal is also silent as to whether termination of Appellant's parental rights was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from future harm. We therefore reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for entry of an order containing the necessary findings of fact pursuant to section 39.810 and for reconsideration of any less restrictive alternatives before any final determination is reached with respect to termination....

...s “manifest best interests” and whether it was the “least restrictive means” to protect the child. The trial court discussed the best interests of A.L.R. and there was some testimony in *399 this regard, but the court never made reference to section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2002), or the “manifest best interests” factors listed in that statute....

...protect the child from harm, a ruling the Department now appeals. We agree with the Department that the trial court improperly relied on “the availability of a nonadoptive placement with a relative” when assessing the least restrictive means, which is expressly prohibited by section 39.810(1), Florida Statutes....

...A.H. does not mean that a trial judge must create an unsolicited permanent guardianship for the sole purpose of avoiding a least restrictive means outcome. 3 Moreover, A.H. did not create an exception to section 39.810(1)—trial courts still cannot consider “the availability of a nonadoptive placement with a relative,” which the trial court did when it relied on a future permanent guardianship with the child’s aunt. G.H.—which did not alter the least restrictive means analysis—is also distinguishable....

...ly Builders parent training course, F.C. could succeed as a parent, at least with his daughters. On remand, the department should attempt to implement the psychologist’s suggestions, where appropriate. Finally we note that the trial court reviewed section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999), which lists factors used to determine whether termination of parental rights is in a child’s manifest best interest....

...the fact that X.W. was conceived as a result of a sexual battery by C.W. gave rise to a statutory presumption that termination was in X.W.'s best interests. See § 39.806(1)(m). It also made findings as to each of the eleven manifest best interest factors in section 39.810. Those findings either weighed in favor of the conclusion that termination was in X.W.'s best interests or were neutral.4 For example, the trial court 4The only factors that did not weigh in favor of termination were those under section 39.810(1), dealing with the existence of a suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative, and section 39.810(10), pertaining to the child's preferences, which the trial court correctly found he was unable to express. These amounted at most to neutrals under the circumstances of this case. See § 39.810(1) (stating that the existence of a suitable permanent custody arrangement "may not -5- found that there is no significant love, affection, or emotional bond between C.W. and X.W. See § 39.810(5). It found that C.W. lacked the current ability and disposition to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care, and other remedial care and that there was no evidence that he would have this capacity in the future. See § 39.810(2). It found that C.W. lacked the current capacity to care for X.W. such that X.W.'s safety, well-being, and health would not be endangered and that there was no evidence of his ability to provide that care in the future. See § 39.810(3). It found that X.W. had formed a significant relationship with a parental substitute—the maternal grandmother—and that the bond between them was strong. See § 39.810(7). And it found that the GAL had recommended termination and that it accepted the GAL's testimony regarding X.W.'s manifest best interests. See § 39.810(11)....

...ental rights, a trial court must find two statutory requirements satisfied by clear and convincing evidence: the existence of a ground for termination under section 39.806 and that termination would be in the child's manifest best interests under section 39.810....

...Achieving permanent stability in the child's life is the paramount concern of the judicial process. The mother argues that the termination order should be reversed because DCF failed to prove that termination of her parental rights was in the manifest best interests of the children. We disagree. Section 39.810 of the Florida Statutes (2005), sets forth the various considerations involved when determining what the manifest best interests of children are in dependency matters....

interest to terminate the Mother’s parental rights. § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2015). The Mother’s appeal followed

...5th DCA 2010) (holding that an order terminating parental rights must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that there is a ground for termination under section 39.806, the termination is in the manifest best interest of the child pursuant to section 39.810, and the termination of the parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm). 2  Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment terminating...

...e Interstate. Gompact. on the Placement of Children (ICPC). In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-13.020(l)(a)(2) requires that DCF insure that “[a]ll possible relatives ' have béen ' explored as a placement resource for the child.” Section 39.810(1), Florida Statutes (2002), requires trial courts to evaluate, inter alia, “[a]ny suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child” in determining the manifest best interests of the child....

...The Department of Children and Families must prove three things before parental rights may be terminated: the existence of a statutory ground for termination under section 39.806, Florida Statutes; that termination is in the child’s manifest best interests under section 39.810, Florida Statutes; and the termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm....

...That is not the situation here, one in which the minimal but highly restricted parental contact at issue—whatever its purpose—has no potential for reuniting the family. 2 2 We note that emotional ties between child and parent are part of the manifest best interest analysis, see section 39.810(5), Florida Statutes (“The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the child and the child's parent or parents, siblings, and other relatives, and the degree of harm to the child that would arise from the terminati...

...Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 846 So. 2d 1250, 1251–52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). “The circuit court must first find grounds for termination of parental rights under section 39.806 and then must consider the manifest best interests of the child under section 39.810.” Id....

...contends that the GAL’s recommendation regarding termination was contrary to A.M.’s express wishes. The statute does not make the child’s wishes the sole governing factor, and instead mandates consideration of “all relevant factors, including but not limited to” any express wishes of the child. See § 39.810, Fla....

subsections of the manifest best interests statute. See § 39.810. It further opined that if it terminated Mother’s

...mong others, see V.S., 322 So. 3d at 1163, the manifest best interest requirement remains an additional safeguard. Here, the trial court considered and evaluated the eleven factors set forth in the “manifest best interests of the child” statute, section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2019)....

...4th DCA 2003)). Further, competent, substantial evidence established termination of E.A.’s parental rights was in the children’s manifest best interest. The manifest best interest analysis requires the trial court to assess eleven factors when deciding whether termination is in the child’s best interest. § 39.810, Fla....

...Indeed, the burden of proof—clear and convincing evidence—remained unchanged after the amendment became effective. See, e.g., Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Program v. A.A., 171 So. 3d 174, 177 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that in order to terminate parental rights under section 39.810(1), Florida Statutes (2014), "the evidence must be clear and convincing" (quoting In re Baby E.A.W., 658 So....

...6 in the manifest best interest of the children that they are never placed in the Mother’s custody.” (emphasis added). In making this determination, the trial court addressed the factors set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2022). The trial court acknowledged that the Mother has a bond with the children, and that “[t]here may be some degree of harm to the children if the [M]other’s parental rights are terminated.” See § 39.810(5), Fla....

...In the trial court's order, it stated that the "court will consider the manifest best interest of the child at a subsequent proceeding." In the Department's concession of error, it notes that the trial court did not conduct a subsequent proceeding concerning the child's manifest best interests. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2009), provides as follows, "In a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child." The statute notes eleven factors that a trial court must consider and evaluate in determining the manifest best interests of the child....

...was in the manifest best interests of the child was reversible error). Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating the Mother's parental rights and remand with directions that the trial court conduct further proceedings to consider each factor in section 39.810 and enter a written order evidencing its findings....

...3 We do not consider this argument with regard to T.D.H., in light of our reversal of the termination order as to T.D.H. 5 serious harm.” Id. “The state must present clear and convincing evidence to support each element.” Id. Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2015), sets forth a list of non- exhaustive factors for a court to consider in determining the manifest best interests of the child....

the eleven non-exclusive factors set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2001), the evidence demonstrating

...its burden by clear and convincing evidence to the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights as to the mother. 22. [The child] has continuing medical needs that the mother . . . cannot provide. The trial court’s final judgment includes findings required by section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2013), related to the manifest best interests of the child....

...III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2  Based upon the above findings and after considering all relevant grounds listed in Florida Statute 39.806 and all of the factors set forth in Florida Statute 39.810(1)-(11), as to [the mother], the ....

...An appellate court cannot question the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. L.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. (In re A.C.), 848 So.2d 433, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings regarding the children’s manifest best interests pursuant to section 39.810, and we find no basis to reverse....

...as suggesting that proof of termination as the least restrictive means is required to prove a statutory ground for termination under section 39.806(l)(c). Rather, chapter 39 requires proof of a ground for termination under section 39.806 and proof that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

BENTON, J. “[T]he availability of a nonadoptive placement with a relative may not ... be considered as a factor weighing against termination of parental rights.” § 39.810(1), Fla....

...so be filed when a child has been adjudicated dependent, a case plan has been filed with the court, and the child continues to be abused, neglected, or abandoned by the parents.” The trial court also found, based on the eleven factors contained in section 39.810, that termination was in the manifest best interests of the children....

...1 To support the termination of parental rights, the Department must prove by clear and convincing evidence one of the grounds for termination contained in section 39.806 and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child pursuant to section 39.810....

...ngs concerning manifest best interests. Those four findings are as follows: (1) “[t]he biological parents do not have the ability or disposition to provide the necessary food, clothing, medical care, or other material needs of the children,” see § 39.810(2); (2) “[t]he biological parents do not have the capacity to care for the children and the children’s safety, well[-]being and physical, mental and emotional health would be endangered if the children were returned to the custody of the biological parents,” see § 39.810(3); (3) the children’s “present and future mental and physical health needs require care by the childrens’ [sic] custodian, which the biological parents are not able to provide,” see § 39.810(4); and (4) “[t]here are limited emotional ties between the children and the biological mother,” see § 39.810(5)....

...d convincing evidence and was clearly erroneous. Finally, the Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parents’ rights to the two older children is in the manifest best interest of these children. See § 39.810, Fla....

...the trial court's determination that the parents posed a substantial risk of significant harm to the two older children was clearly erroneous. . We note that Judge Sawaya has suggested that the "manifest best interests” considerations set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2002), effectively supplant the least restrictive means test discussed in Padgett....

...The mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights. It appears sufficient proof was presented to support a determination that the parental rights of the mother should be terminated. We cannot, however, conduct appropriate appellate review because the statutory factors enumerated in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2005), are not addressed in either the order or the transcript....

merely tracked the statutory factors listed in section 39.810, Florida Statutes. In the case of L.T. v. Dept

...While never specifically finding that the period of D.S.’s incarceration constituted a significant period, the court found that the evidence showed that the children should not have to wait another three years for their father to be released from prison. The court also made findings on the factors required in section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes, including: (1) there was a suitable permanent custody arrangement with the aunt for D.S., Jr....

...From this final judgment, the father appeals. Termination of parental rights by the state requires clear and convincing evidence of: (1) a statutory ground for termination set forth in section 39.806, Florida Statutes; (2) that termination is in the manifest best interest of the child pursuant to section 39.810; and (3) that termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm....

...that they must be applied with an appreciation of the restrictions of incarceration. In addition, the petitioner must allege, and the trial court must find, that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child. See §§ 39.802(4)(c), 39.810, Fla....

...The termination of his parental rights and duties to [S.C.] is the least restrictive means of protecting her from harm. She has not seen her father since she was months old [sic] and she does not know who he is. The court then reviewed the factors in section 39.810(1)-(11), Florida Statutes, regarding the manifest best interests of the child....

...Thus, to terminate a parent’s rights in his or her child, the state must first meet the statutory requirements to prove a statutory ground for termination and prove that termination is in the manifest best interest of the child. See §§ 39.806, 39.810, Fla....

...will be incarcerated for a significant portion of S.C.’s minority. Whether termination is in the manifest best interest of the child Next, the trial court must find that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child. In making this determination, section 39.810, Florida Statutes, sets forth a list of non-exclusive relevant factors, which the trial court took into account: (1) Any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child....