A.H. v. Department of Children & Families
144 So. 3d 662
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In May 2011 DCF took two-year-old K.H. into protective custody; he was placed with a foster mother and adjudicated dependent in July 2011.
- In April 2012 the trial court established a permanent guardianship with the foster mother as guardian and dismissed DCF supervision.
- In September 2013 mother (A.H.) moved to reopen the dependency to seek custody; the court reopened solely to allow DCF to file a termination petition.
- DCF filed to terminate parental rights alleging abandonment, failure to complete the case plan, that adoption was the least restrictive means for permanency, and that termination served the child’s manifest best interest.
- Evidence at the termination hearing: the child is strongly bonded with the permanent guardian (calls her “mom”), is thriving in school and activities, enjoys visits with mother and siblings, and the psychologist could not definitively conclude that returning to mother would threaten the child’s safety.
- The trial court found abandonment, little or no parent-child bond, that removal from the guardian would be harmful, that termination was the least restrictive means, and that termination was in the child’s manifest best interest; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was the least restrictive means to protect the child from harm | Mother: termination not required; less restrictive measures (maintain guardianship with visitation) could protect child | DCF: adoption/termination was necessary for permanency and protection | Court: Trial court erred — termination was not the least restrictive means; reversed |
| Whether termination was in child’s manifest best interest | Mother: maintaining relationship with guardian plus visitation serves child’s interests | DCF/GAL: adoption with guardian best serves child’s stability and permanency | Court did not reach this issue on appeal after finding error as to least restrictive means |
| Whether statutory grounds (abandonment) were proven | Mother: challenges abandonment finding (argued insufficient) | DCF: alleged long-term abandonment supported termination | Court: Did not address the abandonment finding because reversal based on least restrictive means error |
| Whether creation of permanent guardianship limits reopening and termination | Mother: permanent guardianship creates strong presumption for stability; reopening must consider effect on child | DCF: argued permanency could be furthered by adoption | Court: Permanent guardianship is a permanency order; court must weigh child safety, placement stability, preferences, and guardian/GAL recommendations; here guardianship made termination unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- A.H. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 85 So.3d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (standards for termination: statutory ground, best interest, least restrictive means)
- B.C. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 2004) (state must show reunification poses substantial risk and termination is least restrictive means)
- J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 107 So.3d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (termination fails without proof of significant risk or lack of alternative measures)
- L.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 71 So.3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (least restrictive means requires using measures short of termination when safe reunification is possible)
- W.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 928 So.2d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (same principle regarding preservation of parent-child bond where possible)
- In re J.B., 130 So.3d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (permanent guardianship is a permanency order subject to modification; court must consider child’s best interest when reopening)
- G.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 141 So.3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (clarifies burden to prove least restrictive means before terminating parental rights)