J.C., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (2024)

Affirmed. See § 39.806(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2024); S.M.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 357 So. 3d 773, 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“We therefore conclude that § 39.806(1)(f) survives strict scrutiny because it promotes the compelling government interest of protecting children and it narrowly applies in situations where there is egregious conduct.”); T.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 935 So. 2d 621, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Under section 39.806(1)(f), egregious abuse directed at one sibling is sufficient, without more, to support termination of parental rights to another sibling.”); B.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 864 So. 2d 486, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that an as-applied constitutional challenge “must first have been raised at the trial level”); Dailey v. State, 965 So. 2d 38, 47 (Fla. 2007) (“When claims are listed in the headings of briefs but no argument is provided, those claims will be barred as insufficiently argued.”); Cargile-Schrage v. Schrage, 908 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion where the appellant failed to prove a “compelling reason” showing that “no judge in his right mind would have denied the continuance”); Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 389 So. 3d 705, 708 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (“It is not a court's role to scour the record for facts or arguments that a party could have raised in the trial court or on appeal.”).

PER CURIAM.