Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 39.810 (2025)

Manifest best interests of the child.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

39.810 Manifest best interests of the child.—In a hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child. This consideration shall not include a comparison between the attributes of the parents and those of any persons providing a present or potential placement for the child. For the purpose of determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:

(1) Any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child. However, the availability of a nonadoptive placement with a relative may not receive greater consideration than any other factor weighing on the manifest best interest of the child and may not be considered as a factor weighing against termination of parental rights. If a child has been in a stable or preadoptive placement for not less than 6 months, the availability of a different placement, including a placement with a relative, may not be considered as a ground to deny the termination of parental rights.

(2) The ability and disposition of the parent or parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under state law instead of medical care, and other material needs of the child.

(3) The capacity of the parent or parents to care for the child to the extent that the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health will not be endangered upon the child’s return home.

(4) The present mental and physical health needs of the child and such future needs of the child to the extent that such future needs can be ascertained based on the present condition of the child.

(5) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the child and the child’s parent or parents, siblings, and other relatives, and the degree of harm to the child that would arise from the termination of parental rights and duties.

(6) The likelihood of an older child remaining in long-term foster care upon termination of parental rights, due to emotional or behavioral problems or any special needs of the child.

(7) The child’s ability to form a significant relationship with a parental substitute and the likelihood that the child will enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of permanent termination of parental rights and duties.

(8) The length of time that the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.

(9) The depth of the relationship existing between the child and the present custodian.

(10) The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.

(11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child’s guardian ad litem or legal representative.

History.—s. 31, ch. 94-164; s. 18, ch. 95-228; s. 92, ch. 98-403; s. 26, ch. 2006-86.

Note.—Former s. 39.4612.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 147 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Florida Dept. of Child. & Fam. v. Fl, 880 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Florida Dept. of Child. & Fam. v. Fl, 880 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 13× “*615 § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2002) (emphasis added).”

S.M., etc. v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 202 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 12× “§ 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2016). Finally, because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in being a parent to their children, constitutional principles and case law require that DCF demonstrate that some action short of termination of parental rights could have been undertaken…”

TP v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 860 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). · cites it 21× “In my view, the provisions of section 39.810, Florida Statutes, make the creation of such a rebuttable presumption unnecessary and make the reasoning in F.”

BC v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 887 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 8× “See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2003). Each ground for termination must be established by clear and convincing evidence.”

CM v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 953 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). · cites it 14× “See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2004). Given the fundamental liberty interest accorded to parental rights, the Department had the burden to show that the termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.”

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). · cites it 13× “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

J.S. v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 18 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). · cites it 10× “First, they argue that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to find grounds for termination of the father’s parental rights, and second, they argue that the trial court erred in failing to address specifically each of the “manifest best interests” factors…”

Florida Dept. of Child. & Families, et.al. v. A.R. & R.L., Parents, 253 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). · cites it 7× “Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2017), sets out eleven factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interest of the child.”

J. P., mother of T. P. v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 183 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). · cites it 4× “In addition to providing a statutory ground, the second requirement before parental rights may be terminated is a showing by the Department that termination is in the child’s manifest best interest pursuant to section 39.810, Florida Statutes. The third and final requirement is…”

Cc v. Dept. of Child. & Fam. Servs., 812 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). · cites it 4× “C.'s parental rights had been terminated as to one of them on that account.”

Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. S.H., 49 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). · cites it 5× “See § 39.810 (providing that in a hearing on a TPR petition, “the court shall consider the manifest best interests of the child”) (emphasis added); A.”

In the Interest of N.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 82 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). · cites it 6× “At one point during the case manager’s testimony, the Department’s attorney posed a litany of questions that simply parroted the manifest best interests factors set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2010). For example: Q.”

Show all 147 citing cases →

— 39.810(1) — 37 cases

CM v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 953 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2004). Given the fundamental liberty interest accorded to parental rights, the Department had the burden to show that the termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.”

Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. A.A., 171 So. 3d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. K.D., 88 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Florida Dept. of Child. & Families, et.al. v. A.R. & R.L., Parents, 253 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2017), sets out eleven factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether termination of parental rights is in the manifest best interest of the child.”

C.D. v. Florida Dep't of Child. & Families, 164 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

— 39.810(1)(11) — 1 case

In Re Dad II, 903 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

— 39.810(10) — 5 cases

Dep't of Child. & Fam. v. Mj, 889 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. C.W. (In re X.W.), 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Dep't of Child. & Families Vs S.S.L. & M.d., Parents of O.d., a Child (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

— 39.810(11) — 3 cases

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. C.W. (In re X.W.), 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Dep't of Child. & Families Vs S.S.L. & M.d., Parents of O.d., a Child (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

— 39.810(2) — 7 cases

BC v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 887 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2004). “See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2003). Each ground for termination must be established by clear and convincing evidence.”

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

In the Interest of N.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 82 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). “At one point during the case manager’s testimony, the Department’s attorney posed a litany of questions that simply parroted the manifest best interests factors set forth in section 39.810, Florida Statutes (2010). For example: Q.”

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. C.W. (In re X.W.), 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

In Re Dd, 879 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

— 39.810(3) — 13 cases

BC v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 887 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2004). “See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. (2003). Each ground for termination must be established by clear and convincing evidence.”

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

TP v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 860 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “In my view, the provisions of section 39.810, Florida Statutes, make the creation of such a rebuttable presumption unnecessary and make the reasoning in F.”

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. C.W. (In re X.W.), 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Dep't of Child. & Families v. KF, 916 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

— 39.810(4) — 5 cases

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

M.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 879 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

V.s., the Mother v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

In Re Dd, 879 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Dep't of Child. & Families Vs S.S.L. & M.d., Parents of O.d., a Child (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

— 39.810(5) — 9 cases

State of Florida, Dep't of etc. v. B.C., the mother & C.S., the father, 185 So. 3d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. C.W. (In re X.W.), 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

W.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 15 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

M.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 879 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Dep't of Child. & Families v. L.W., the Mother (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

— 39.810(7) — 5 cases

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. C.W. (In re X.W.), 255 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

A.B., the Father v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).

Guardian Ad Litem Prog. v. Dept. of Child. & Families (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Dep't of Child. & Families Vs S.S.L. & M.d., Parents of O.d., a Child (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

— 39.810(8) — 1 case

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

— 39.810(9) — 1 case

SD v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 805 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). “The factors delineated in Section 39.810, Florida Statutes (1999). II.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.