C.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families
164 So. 3d 40
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DCF filed a petition terminating Mother’s parental rights to two children; trial court found statutory grounds under sections 39.806(1)(c) and (e) and that termination was in the children’s manifest best interests.
- Service providers and the retained psychologist (Dr. Flynn) testified Mother has low cognitive abilities, had not meaningfully improved parenting skills, and posed a risk to reunification; Dr. Flynn also testified supervised visits would be safe and had no objection to discharging therapy.
- The Guardian ad Litem (GAL) recommended TPR but previously indicated termination would not harm the children because the maternal aunt would adopt and permit contact with Mother.
- Trial court found children bonded with Mother but also found they could not be safely reunified and concluded "termination is the least restrictive means to achieve permanency," rejecting reliance on a relative placement disclosed late.
- The district court affirmed the statutory grounds and best‑interest finding, but reversed the trial court’s conclusion that TPR was the least restrictive means to protect the children, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCF/GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds under §39.806(1)(c) and (e) were proven | Mother contested termination but did not successfully rebut evidence of statutory grounds | DCF argued clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the cited statutes | Affirmed: court found statutory grounds satisfied |
| Whether termination was the least restrictive means to protect the children from serious harm | Termination was not least restrictive because Dr. Flynn said supervised contact was safe and aunt would allow contact, so less restrictive plans could protect the children | DCF/GAL argued permanency (adoption) and lack of parental capacity justified TPR as least restrictive | Reversed: court held DCF failed to prove TPR was the least restrictive means |
| Whether termination was in the children’s manifest best interests | Mother argued harm from severing parental rights; pointed to bond and safe supervised contact | DCF/GAL argued adoption by aunt and children’s welfare favored termination | Affirmed: termination found to be in children’s manifest best interests |
| Standard of review / sufficiency of evidence | Mother argued trial findings on least restrictive means conflicted with record showing supervised contact safe | DCF argued trial court’s findings entitled to deference | Court applied clear‑and‑convincing standard; affirmed some factual findings but reversed the least‑restrictive‑means finding as unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 843 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (standard of appellate review in TPR cases; clear and convincing evidence requirement)
- Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Sevs., 577 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1991) (state must show reunification poses substantial risk of significant harm and that termination is least restrictive means)
- A.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 144 So.3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (TPR not least restrictive where evidence showed supervised contact posed no harm and preserving relationship was possible)
- G.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 145 So.3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (criticized terminating parental rights where supervised parental contact could prevent harm and guardianship might protect the child)
- N.S. & D.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 36 So.3d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (least restrictive means requires narrowly tailored state action)