Concerns are not Evidence

In this case, the trial court was presented with evidence that the mother had substantially complied with the case plan, and the trial court appeared to accept that substantial compliance. Thus, there was a presumption of reunification. However, the trial court denied reunification based on the finding that returning the children to the mother would endanger their physical and mental well-being. This finding was based solely on the report of the children’s therapist and the opinions of the guardian ad litem and the state. This evidence is similar to the evidence this Court rejected in C.D., and, under C.D., this evidence does not meet the competent substantial evidence standard.

M.N. ex rel. N.N. v. Department of Children and Families
— So.3d —-, 2012 WL 5846288
Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2012.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *