          FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                          No. 1D18-2937
                  _____________________________

A.P., SR., Father of A.P., Jr. and
A.F.-P., Minor Children,

    Appellant,

    v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
James P. Nilon, Judge.

                        December 18, 2018


PER CURIAM.

    Appellant, A.P., Sr., appeals an order terminating his
parental rights pursuant to sections 39.806(1)(c) and (1)(f), Florida
Statutes (2017). Appellant argues that the trial court erred in
basing the termination in part upon section 39.806(1)(c), 1 that



    1  Section 39.806(1)(c) provides a ground for termination when
a parent “engaged in conduct toward the child or toward other
children that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the
parent or parents in the parent-child relationship threatens the
life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental, or emotional health of
section 39.806(1)(f) 2 is unconstitutional because the Legislature
eliminated the proof-of-nexus requirement in a 2014 amendment,
and that termination was not in the children’s manifest best
interests. We find no merit in Appellant’s challenge to the trial
court’s application of section 39.806(1)(c) in terminating his rights
or in his best interests argument. Given such, we decline to
address Appellant’s constitutional challenge to section
39.806(1)(f). See In re Holder, 945 So. 2d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 2006)
(explaining that courts are to avoid considering a constitutional
question when the case can be decided on non-constitutional
grounds); Overstreet v. Overstreet, 244 So. 3d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2018) (“The law requires us to refrain from reaching
constitutional questions if we can resolve the case on other
grounds.”); J.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 198 So. 3d 706,
708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“As a result of our conclusion as to this
ground [section 39.806(1)(c)], we do not need to determine whether
termination was authorized under section 39.806(1)(f).”).

    Accordingly, we affirm the order terminating Appellant’s
parental rights.

    AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.




the child irrespective of the provision of services.” § 39.806(1)(c),
Fla. Stat. (2017).
    2 Section 39.806(1)(f) provides a ground for termination when
a parent “engaged in egregious conduct or had the opportunity and
capability to prevent and knowingly failed to prevent egregious
conduct that threatens the life, safety, or physical, mental, or
emotional health of the child or the child’s sibling.” § 39.806(1)(f),
Fla. Stat. (2017). In 2014, the Legislature amended the statute to
include the language “[p]roof of a nexus between egregious conduct
to a child and the potential harm to the child’s sibling is not
required.” Ch. 14-224, § 19, Laws of Fla. (2014).

                                  2
                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Susan Barber, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Tallahassee,
and Crystal M. Frusciante, Sunrise, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger of Department of Children and Families,
Jacksonville, for Appellee.




                              3
