K. H., Father of H.H., H.H., Minor Children, Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families, Appellee. (2026)

Given our review of the record and the arguments of the Appellant and counsel, we find that Appellant has not demonstrated a basis on which to overturn the lower court's final judgment. N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Services, 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“We are obliged to affirm the termination of parental rights if [the Department] has met its burden to present clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for terminating parental rights, along with clear and convincing evidence that terminating parental rights is in the best interests of the child.”). As such, we affirm. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.265(b) & 8.270(b); see also In re T.D., 924 So. 2d 827, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“Neither B.T., nor any of the other post-Berg-Perlow decisions of this court, requires reversal solely on the ground that a trial court has adopted a judgment prepared by one of the parties.”); M.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 765 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“It is undisputed that parental rights may be terminated pursuant to section 39.806(1)(e) if a parent fails to comply substantially with a case plan for a period of 12 months after a child is adjudicated dependent.”).

Per Curiam.

Roberts, Nordby, and Neff, JJ., concur.