S.K., the Father, Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellee. (2026)

For the reasons set forth in M.C., the Mother v. Dep't of Children & Families, et al., 51 Fla. L. Wkly D461c (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 13, 2026), we affirm.

In this case, S.K., the father, appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights to two of his children. He contends he was wrongfully barred from testifying in his own behalf when the trial court denied an agreed motion for him to testify remotely because his poverty and residence in Washington State prevented him from testifying in person. The Department agreed to the motion, and, on appeal, properly and admirably confessed error. Yet the majority affirms. I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissent in the companion case involving the mother of the children, M.C. v. Department of Children & Families, No. 3D25-1545, 2026 WL 705997, at *9-11 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 13, 2026). The trial court's error in denying the agreed motion was egregious. Its practical effect was to bar S.K. from testifying in his own behalf at a hearing in which the government was taking away his children. If that does not rise to the level of a structural error, I cannot imagine what would.

PER CURIAM.

LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ., concur.