FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2937

_____________________________

A.P., SR., Father of A.P., Jr. and 

A.F.-P., Minor Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

James P. Nilon, Judge.

December 18, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, A.P., Sr., appeals an order terminating his 

parental rights pursuant to sections 39.806(1)(c) and (1)(f), Florida 

Statutes (2017). Appellant argues that the trial court erred in 

basing the termination in part upon section 39.806(1)(c),1 that 

 1 Section 39.806(1)(c) provides a ground for termination when 

a parent “engaged in conduct toward the child or toward other 

children that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the 

parent or parents in the parent-child relationship threatens the 

life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of 
2

section 39.806(1)(f)2 is unconstitutional because the Legislature 

eliminated the proof-of-nexus requirement in a 2014 amendment, 

and that termination was not in the children’s manifest best 

interests. We find no merit in Appellant’s challenge to the trial 

court’s application of section 39.806(1)(c) in terminating his rights 

or in his best interests argument. Given such, we decline to 

address Appellant’s constitutional challenge to section 

39.806(1)(f). See In re Holder, 945 So. 2d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 2006) 

(explaining that courts are to avoid considering a constitutional 

question when the case can be decided on non-constitutional 

grounds); Overstreet v. Overstreet, 244 So. 3d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2018) (“The law requires us to refrain from reaching 

constitutional questions if we can resolve the case on other 

grounds.”); J.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 198 So. 3d 706, 

708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“As a result of our conclusion as to this 

ground [section 39.806(1)(c)], we do not need to determine whether 

termination was authorized under section 39.806(1)(f).”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Appellant’s 

parental rights.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

 

the child irrespective of the provision of services.” § 39.806(1)(c), 

Fla. Stat. (2017).

2 Section 39.806(1)(f) provides a ground for termination when 

a parent “engaged in egregious conduct or had the opportunity and 

capability to prevent and knowingly failed to prevent egregious 

conduct that threatens the life, safety, or physical, mental, or 

emotional health of the child or the child’s sibling.” § 39.806(1)(f), 

Fla. Stat. (2017). In 2014, the Legislature amended the statute to 

include the language “[p]roof of a nexus between egregious conduct 

to a child and the potential harm to the child’s sibling is not 

required.” Ch. 14-224, § 19, Laws of Fla. (2014). 
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Susan Barber, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee, 

and Crystal M. Frusciante, Sunrise, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger of Department of Children and Families, 

Jacksonville, for Appellee.