Court Opinion

ID: 9894299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 14:04:42.356291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:35.801665
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                        Opinion filed November 1, 2023.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                             No. 3D22-1756
                 Lower Tribunal Nos. 22-15273 & 18-11181
                           ________________

                           Hayet Naser Molina,
                                   Appellant,

                                      vs.

                   Alfredo Jose Salvi Fuenmayor,
                                   Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Scott M.
Bernstein, Judge.

      Robert C. Gindel, Jr., P.A., and Robert C. Gindel, Jr. (Boynton Beach),
for appellant.

     PAG Law PLLC, and Brett A. Barfield, and Alexandra Goodstone;
Robert J. Hanreck, P.A., and Robert J. Hanreck, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.

     LINDSEY, J.
       Appellant Hayet Naser Gomez Molina (the “Mother”) appeals from a

final order terminating her parental rights to M.N., her minor daughter, and

granting sole parental responsibility to Appellee Alfredo Jose Salvi

Fuenmayor (the “Father”). The trial court relied on four independent statutory

grounds for termination pursuant to § 39.806(1), Florida Statutes (2023).

Because competent substantial evidence supports termination under at least

one of the statutory grounds, we affirm.

  I.     BACKGROUND

       This appeal arises from a contentious and protracted custody battle.

M.N. was born in Venezuela in 2011; her parents are Venezuelan citizens.

The parties’ relationship had ended by the time M.N. was born, but both

parents were involved in the child’s life in accordance with a custody

arrangement approved by a Venezuelan court. In July 2012, the Mother took

M.N. to Miami, which resulted in the Father filing a petition in the Southern

District of Florida for return of the child to Venezuela pursuant to the Hague

Convention. The court granted the Father’s petition and ordered the child to

be returned.    See Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 14-CV-24733-KMM, 2015 WL

12977397, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2015) (citing Fuenmayor v. Gomez, Case

No. 1:13-cv-22357-MGC, at ECF No. 29). M.N. and both parents returned

to Venezuela.

                                      2
        M.N. lived with her Father in Venezuela until he relocated to the United

States in February 2014.         This resulted in a second federal Hague

Convention case—this time filed by the Mother. Following a two-day bench

trial, the court denied the Mother’s petition. Id. at *8.1 Consequently, the

Father and M.N. remained in the United States. The Mother subsequently

moved to the United States. It is undisputed that the Mother has not seen

M.N. since July 2013.

        In May 2018, the Mother filed the underlying Petition to prevent M.N.

from leaving Miami-Dade County. In response, the Father filed an Answer

and Counterpetition for termination of the Mother’s parental rights. Both

petitions were set for an adjudicatory hearing, which took place over the

course of five days. The lower court heard testimony from the Father, the

Mother, M.N.’s Guardian ad Litem,2 and various other witnesses. Following

the hearing, the court entered a 26-page Final Judgment terminating the

Mother’s parental rights based on the following four statutory grounds: (1)

abandonment (§ 39.806(1)(b)); (2) conduct threatening the life, safety, well-

being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of the child irrespective of the

1
 The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the Mother’s
petition. Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016).
2
    The Guardian ad Litem also submitted a detailed 18-page report.

                                        3
provision of services (§ 39.806(1)(c)); egregious conduct (§ 39.806(1)(f));

and conspiracy or solicitation to murder the other parent (§ 39.806(1)(h)).

The Mother timely appealed.

   II.      ANALYSIS

         On appeal, the Mother challenges the trial court’s findings with respect

to all four statutory grounds it relied on in support of termination. “We review

the trial court’s findings under the highly deferential competent substantial

evidence standard of review.” S.M.O. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 357 So. 3d

773, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). It is “the function of the trial court . . . to

evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation

of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses appearing in the

cause.” Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976). Accordingly, it is not

our role “to substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court through re-

evaluation of the testimony and evidence from the record on appeal . . . .”

Id. In short, overturning a trial court’s determination to terminate parental

rights is a high hurdle when supported by both factual and credibility findings,

as is the case here.

         “[B]efore terminating parental rights, ‘the trial court must find that the

Department established by clear and convincing evidence the following: (1)

the existence of at least one statutory ground for terminating parental rights

                                          4
set forth in section 39.806(1); (2) termination is in the manifest best interest

of the child; and (3) termination is the least restrictive means to protect the

child from serious harm.’” D.M. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 315 So. 3d 90,

93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting L.Q. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 282 So. 3d

958, 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)).

        The first statutory ground the trial court relied on was abandonment

pursuant to § 39.806(1)(b).3 The court found that the Mother, while being

able, made no contribution to the child’s care and maintenance and failed to

maintain a positive relationship with her. The court further found that M.N.,

who was 11 years old at the time of the hearing, had not seen her mother

3
    Abandonment is defined in § 39.01(1), in relevant part, as follows:

              (1) “Abandoned” or “abandonment” means a
              situation in which the parent or legal custodian of a
              child or, in the absence of a parent or legal custodian,
              the caregiver, while being able, has made no
              significant contribution to the child’s care and
              maintenance or has failed to establish or maintain a
              substantial and positive relationship with the child, or
              both. For purposes of this subsection, “establish or
              maintain a substantial and positive relationship”
              includes, but is not limited to, frequent and regular
              contact with the child through frequent and regular
              visitation or frequent and regular communication to
              or with the child, and the exercise of parental rights
              and responsibilities. Marginal efforts and incidental
              or token visits or communications are not sufficient to
              establish or maintain a substantial and positive
              relationship with a child.

                                         5
since she was two years old. Though the Mother testified that she made

efforts to establish a relationship with M.N., the court found that these efforts

were not sufficient.

      Based on the ample testimony and other evidence below, including the

Guardian ad Litem’s detailed report, we must conclude that the trial court’s

findings were supported by competent substantial evidence.4 Because the

existence of only one statutory ground is necessary for termination of

parental rights, we need not consider the other three grounds the trial court

relied on. See, e.g., S.M.O., 357 So. 3d at 778 (explaining that the existence

of only one statutory ground is necessary for termination of parental rights).

      Having concluded that at least one of the statutory grounds is

supported by competent substantial evidence, we briefly address the least

restrictive means requirement. Ordinarily, a good faith effort should be made

4
    The Mother argues the trial court and the Guardian ad Litem were
prohibited from relying on the federal court findings in the two Hague
Convention cases. See 22 U.S.C. § 9001(b)(4) (“The Convention and this
chapter empower courts in the United States to determine only rights under
the Convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.”).
Even assuming arguendo this is true, both the trial court and the Guardian
ad Litem’s report did not exclusively rely on the findings in the Hague
Convention cases. Indeed, the trial court expressly stated in its order that
“the issues before the federal courts were not quite the same as the issues
before this court. . . . [T]his Court analyzed the facts (both those presented
before this Court and those established by judicial notice from the federal
litigation) . . . to reach a conclusion regarding [M.N.’s] manifest best interest.”

                                        6
to rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family. Padgett v. Dep’t of Health

& Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565, 571 (Fla. 1991). However, this is not

required in certain extraordinary circumstances because the best interest of

the child must ultimately prevail. See In Interest of T.M., 641 So. 2d 410,

413 (Fla. 1994); see also F.L.C. v. G.C., 24 So. 3d 669, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA

2009) (“[T]he least restrictive means test is not intended to preserve the

parental bonds at the cost of a child’s future.”).

          Here, given the circumstances in this case, the trial court determined

that termination of the Mother’s parental rights satisfied the least restrictive

means requirement. Because it is not our role to evaluate and weigh the

evidence, we are compelled to affirm. Moreover, as the trial court correctly

concluded in its order, reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family

are not required for the grounds pled in the Father’s underlying

Counterpetition. See § 39.806(2), Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Reasonable efforts to

preserve and reunify families are not required if a court of competent

jurisdiction has determined that any of the events described in paragraphs

(1)(b)-(d) or paragraphs (1)(f)-(m) have occurred.”).

   III.     CONCLUSION

          Because competent substantial evidence supports termination of

parental rights under at least one of the statutory grounds set forth in §

                                         7
39.806(1), we affirm the Final Judgment terminating the Mother’s parental

rights. Moreover, based on the circumstances in this case, we hold that the

trial court did not err in failing to require a good faith effort to rehabilitate the

Mother and reunite the family.

      Affirmed.

                                         8