performance agreement and was a risk to the child because of her drug addiction. Compare Collucci v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 664 So.2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also In Interest of B.L.B., 635 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The evidence is overwhelming that Atwell was addicted to drugs and could not provide a nurturing environment for M.A. Atwell’s failure to seek drug treatment is evidence of prospective neglect. See Williams v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 648 So.2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (affirming, based on father’s continued drug use, trial court’s conclusion that father failed to substantially comply with his performance agreement); Brown v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 582 So.2d 113, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, prospective abuse served as a proper
holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned holding that mothers continuing drug addiction was sufficient to support finding of prospective neglect holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding holding that the wiretap application as corrected was sufficient to support a finding of necessity holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract