D.B. v. Department of Children & Families
87 So. 3d 1279
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- The Department sought termination of the Father’s parental rights under section 39.806(l)(c).
- The trial court found potential future harm to the Child if lived with the Father due to his mental illness and medication noncompliance.
- Paternity was established; the Child was about two years old at adjudication and had prior removal from the mother.
- A home study showed the Father’s home was safe, but his mental illness made custody unadvisable; the Father was not offered a case plan.
- The trial court found the Father not amenable to services and that termination was the least restrictive means to protect the Child.
- The Court affirmed termination, concluding the evidence supported future risk and futility of services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports termination under 39.806(l)(c) | Father contends no prospective harm shown. | Department argues risk exists due to mental illness and noncompliance. | Yes; termination supported by likelihood of future harm. |
| Whether the Department was required to offer a case plan to the Father | Father cites failure to offer case plan as reversible error. | Department argues no plan required where futility shown. | No; case plan not required where futility is proven. |
| Whether termination was the least restrictive alternative | Court should use least restrictive means with services to reunify. | Services would be futile; continued parental rights not necessary for protection. | Yes; termination is least restrictive means to protect the Child. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 866 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (evidence must show risk to child's well-being beyond illness)
- I.R. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 904 So.2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (factually distinct; no misdiagnosis; amenability to services required)
- W.R. v. Dep’t of Children and Family Services, 896 So.2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (no case plan offered; futility of services supports termination)
- C.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 874 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (not amenable to services based on speculative assessment)
- R.W.W. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 788 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (futility standard for termination under 39.806(l)(c))
- M.A.P. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 739 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (denial of treatment need not preclude termination when required)
- A.W. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 969 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (least restrictive means requires meaningful efforts to reunify; where futile, termination justified)
- In re J.L.P., 416 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (protective emphasis on child welfare despite parental illness)
- I.Z. v. B.H. & R.M., 53 So.3d 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (mental illness alone insufficient; must show risk of harm)