C.P., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 21-0465

Father (C.P.) was arrested June 2018 on a drug charge and incarcerated on a ~5-year sentence; he expected earlier release but remained imprisoned through most of the case.
DCF filed dependency petitions in April 2018 regarding the mother; at that time C.Y.P. was eight months old and father did not request custody or visit prior to his arrest.
C.F.P. was born in September 2018 after the father’s incarceration; the father had essentially no direct contact with either child while incarcerated except for one foster-parent‑facilitated visit about a year after incarceration.
DCF provided means for contact (advocate to forward letters or facilitate calls) but father did not use them; he also did not send letters to the children.
While incarcerated the father completed individual counseling, parenting counseling, and a voluntary substance‑abuse program, but could not provide proof of stable housing or income.
Trial court terminated father’s parental rights to both children: for C.Y.P. on abandonment (§39.806(1)(b)); for C.F.P. on abandonment, continuing threat irrespective of services (§39.806(1)(c)), and failure to substantially comply with the case plan (§39.806(1)(e)1.). Father appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCF)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether abandonment under §39.806(1)(b) was proven	Father made no significant contribution and failed to establish/maintain a substantial positive relationship	Incarceration limited ability to maintain relationship; DCF did not sufficiently assist	Affirmed: competent substantial evidence supports abandonment termination as to both children
Whether termination under §39.806(1)(c) (continuing relationship threatens child irrespective of services) was proven for C.F.P.	Father’s lack of contact and past conduct make future harm likely and he is not amenable to services	Little or no evidence of harmful past conduct to C.F.P.; father completed services and is amenable	Reversed as to C.F.P.: record lacks competent substantial evidence for this ground
Whether termination under §39.806(1)(e)1. (failure to substantially comply with case plan) was proven for C.F.P.	Father failed to comply with required case‑plan tasks (contact, housing, income, support)	Father completed the case‑plan tasks he could while incarcerated; incarceration limited ability to comply with housing/income requirements	Reversed as to C.F.P.: father lacked ability to complete some plan tasks while incarcerated
Whether termination was in children’s manifest best interests and was least restrictive means	Termination was in best interests and least restrictive to prevent harm	Father did not contest these findings on appeal	Affirmed (unchallenged on appeal)

M.D. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families, 187 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (standard of review and abandonment analysis)
B.F. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families, 237 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (incarceration does not automatically excuse abandonment; consider efforts while incarcerated)
D.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 87 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (§39.806(1)(c) requires past conduct or condition making future harm likely and no reasonable basis to expect improvement)
In re G.M., Jr., 71 So. 3d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (parent’s ability to comply with case plan is essential; incarceration can limit ability)
T.S. ex rel. D.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 969 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (definition of "while being able" excludes involuntary abandonment)
In re T.H., 979 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (consider limited prison opportunities when assessing parental efforts)
R.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 273 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (completion of case‑plan tasks while incarcerated does not excuse failure to maintain contact)
T.C.S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. (In re G.R.S.), 647 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (communication through custodians can establish relationship)