R.M. v. Department of Children and Families — affirmed termination of parental rights because the father did not show appellate error

Case
R.M., Father of A.S., Minor Child v. Department of Children and Families
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Jay, C.J.; Eisnaugle, J.; Harris, J.
Date Decided
August 17, 2026
Docket No.
5D2026-1081
Topics
Parental Rights; Abandonment; Incarcerated Parents; Appellate Briefing
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

R.M., the father of A.S., appealed a Hernando County circuit court order terminating his parental rights. The trial court found that, even accounting for his incarceration in Texas, R.M. had made “almost no effort to be a part of the child’s life.”

R.M. argued that incarceration alone could not establish abandonment and that he had done all he could from prison. He emphasized that, after learning he was the father, he sent six letters to the case manager—approximately one every two months, according to his initial brief.

The Court’s Holding

The Fifth District affirmed. The majority did not decide whether the Department proved abandonment on the merits. Instead, it held that R.M. failed to carry his appellate burden because his initial brief did not directly challenge the trial court’s dispositive finding that he made “almost no effort” to participate in the child’s life.

The court explained that R.M. did not meaningfully address the frequency or substance of his letters, which were directed to the case manager rather than the child. Although he asserted that the case manager was his only available communication channel, he did not argue that he had attempted to communicate with the child through the case manager. On the arguments presented, he therefore failed to demonstrate reversible error.

Key Takeaways

  • The affirmance rested on inadequate appellate briefing, not an express merits determination that incarceration and six letters necessarily constituted abandonment.
  • An appellant must directly confront the trial court’s material findings and explain why the record and governing law make those findings erroneous.
  • Judge Harris dissented, concluding that the Department lacked competent, substantial evidence establishing abandonment by clear and convincing evidence because R.M. had no demonstrated ability to provide support or communicate more extensively.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the importance of precisely framing appellate challenges in termination-of-parental-rights cases. Even when an appellant raises a potentially substantial legal issue, the appellate court may affirm if the initial brief does not directly attack the findings supporting the judgment.

The dissent also highlights the evidentiary concerns that arise when abandonment is alleged against an incarcerated parent, including whether the parent had the ability to provide support or maintain greater contact and whether the parent used the means of communication actually available.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top