# T.P. v. Department of Children & Family Services

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · August 9, 2006 · 935 So. 2d 621

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7783757

## Case

- **Full name:** T.P. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** August 9, 2006
- **Citations:** 935 So. 2d 621; 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13254; 2006 WL 2270372
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Green
- **Judges:** Cortiñas, Green, Ramirez
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7783757

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding standard of review for the sufficiency of evidence supporting termination of parental rights is whether order is supported by substantial competent evidence

## Opinion text

GREEN, J.
(specially concurring).
On this appeal from a final judgment terminating his parental rights, the issue of whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of prospective abuse as to the unharmed.child, Z.K.P., was waived and is not properly before this court where the appellant father failed to specifically raise the same in his motion for judgment of dismissal at the conclusion of DCF’s case. See J.D. v. Dept. of Children and Fams., 825 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Moreover, the father’s challenge to the insufficiency of the evidence does not-rise *626 to the level of fundamental error so as to permit him to raise it for the first time on appeal. See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229-30 (Fla.2003) (“rarely will an error be deemed fundamental, and the more general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appellate review will usually apply. We find that the interests of justice are better served by applying this general rule to challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence.”). I would therefore affirm the final judgment under review for this reason alone.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7783757. Public record. Not legal advice.