Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 21, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-590 Lower Tribunal No. 14-16072 ________________ C.L., the Father, Appellant, vs. Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge. Thomas Butler, P.A., and Thomas J. Butler, for appellant. Karla Perkins for appellee, Department of Children and Families; Thomasina F. Moore and Laura J. Lee (Tallahassee) for appellee, Guardian ad Litem Program. Before EMAS, C.J., and MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 39.806(1)(e)3., Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing the following may serve as a basis for termination of parental rights: “When a child has been adjudicated dependent, a case plan has been filed with the court, and . . . [t]he child has been in care for any 12 of the last 22 months and the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification under s. 39.522(2) unless the failure to substantially comply with the case plan was due to the parent's lack of financial resources or to the failure of the department to make reasonable efforts to reunify the parent and child”); § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing: “In cases where the issue before the court is whether a child should be reunited with a parent, the court shall review the conditions for return and determine whether the circumstances that caused the out-of-home placement and issues subsequently identified have been remedied to the extent that the return of the child to the home with an in-home safety plan prepared or approved by the department will not be detrimental to the child's safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health”).1 1 We find no merit in the other arguments raised by the Father, and need not (and therefore do not) reach the constitutional issues raised. 2