C.S., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem, Appellees. (2026)

C.S., the Mother, appeals the termination of her parental rights on petition from the Department of Children and Families. We affirm.

“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); see In re N.F., 82 So. 3d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). The appellant has a duty to brief a case so as to “acquaint the Court with the material facts, the points of law involved, and the legal arguments supporting the positions of the respective parties.” B.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 300 So. 3d 1273, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (quoting Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Because her half-page brief does not apprise the Court of the material facts or the points of law involved, the Mother's issues are insufficiently briefed and therefore waived. See Coolen v. State, 696 So. 2d 738, 742 n.2 (Fla. 1997) (holding that issues not fully briefed and argued are waived); Lynn v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 81 So. 2d 511, 513 (Fla. 1955) (“It is elementary that when a decree of the trial court is brought here on appeal the duty rests upon the appealing party to make error clearly appear.”).

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

STARGEL, GANNAM and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.