CG v. Department of Children and Families
67 So. 3d 1141
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- A.G. came into state care on October 14, 2008, due to the mother's mental health issues risking harm to the child.
- On December 1, 2008, after the mother was Baker Acted, she consented to A.G.'s dependent adjudication.
- A.G. was briefly returned to CG, then returned to foster care on January 27, 2009 after CG's prostitution conviction; the father had no involvement.
- On October 7, 2010, the court changed the case plan goal to adoption; on November 4, 2010, DCF filed to terminate CG's parental rights.
- During termination, DCF moved for judicial notice of many documents; the trial court noticed the dependency record but required termination findings to be clear and convincing.
- The court admitted the dependency orders for notice, then relied on additional testimony to find that termination was the least restrictive means to protect A.G.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence | CG contends dependency findings need re-proving by clear and convincing standard. | DCF argues termination relies on a combination of noticed dependency records and new clear and convincing evidence. | Yes; the record supports termination by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the court properly used judicial notice of dependency records | CG asserts reliance on noticed orders alone is insufficient. | DCF contends judicial notice of underlying dependency orders was proper and complemented by testimony. | Properly used; dependency orders were noticed and supplemented by evidence. |
| Whether CG substantially complied with the reunification plans | CG argues she substantially complied with the case plans. | DCF asserts CG failed to participate in or benefit from services and therapy. | No; CG failed to substantially comply with the case plans. |
| Whether termination is the least restrictive means and in the child's best interests | CG maintains termination is not necessary if reunification is feasible. | DCF argues termination is least restrictive and serves the child's best interests. | Yes; termination is the least restrictive means and in A.G.'s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565 (Fla.1991) (necessity of clear and convincing evidence for termination when reunification risks harm)
- D.P. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 930 So.2d 798 (Fla.3d DCA 2006) (highly deferential review; substantial evidence standard)
- N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 843 So.2d 996 (Fla.1st DCA 2003) (preserves weight of dependency records in termination proceedings)
- N.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 36 So.3d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 2010) (least restrictive means/guarding child's welfare in termination)
- B.F. v. Dep't of Children and Family Servs., 929 So.2d 620 (Fla.3d DCA 2006) (reunification efforts and substantial compliance considerations)
- R.A. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 724 So.2d 574 (Fla.3d DCA 1998) (dependency order findings may be judicially noticed in termination)
- M.M. v. Dep't of Children and Family Servs., 867 So.2d 573 (Fla.3d DCA 2004) (parent's noncompliance evidenced by unwillingness to organize life for child)
- N.W. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 865 So.2d 625 (Fla.4th DCA 2004) (proper scope/weight of prior orders for termination decisions)