D.S., the Father v. Department of Children And Families, 164 So. 3d 29

Father (D.S.) incarcerated on robbery/aggravated assault charges; sentenced Jan 2013 to ~6 years (release May 2017 earliest; Feb 2018 max). Children: D.S., Jr. (2006), P.S. (2008), K.S. (2011).
Children removed May 2012 due to mother's substance abuse/medical neglect; reunification plan offered to both parents. Two children (D.S., Jr. and K.S.) placed with paternal aunt; P.S. placed in non‑relative foster care.
Department filed termination petition (July 2013) alleging incarceration for a significant portion of the children’s minority under §39.806(1)(d) as sole ground for terminating father’s rights.
Evidence: father maintained weekly letters, multiple weekly phone calls, and periodic prison visits (aunt facilitated); P.S. had minimal contact and declined visits; aunt and foster parents expressed willingness to consider adoption but aunt’s testimony was equivocal.
Trial court terminated parental rights as to all three children, finding suitable permanent homes, need for permanency, and that termination was the least restrictive means.
Court of Appeal affirmed termination as to P.S. but reversed for D.S., Jr. and K.S., finding insufficient evidence that incarceration was a "significant portion" impacting their need for permanency and that least restrictive/manifest‑best‑interest requirements were unmet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (D.S.)	Held
Whether father’s incarceration satisfies §39.806(1)(d) ("significant portion")	Incarceration (27–33% of minority) plus children’s need for permanency establish statutory ground	Incarceration alone insufficient; father maintained meaningful contact and relatives provide stable care	P.S.: yes. D.S., Jr. & K.S.: no — quantitative and qualitative effects on permanency not proved
Whether termination is in the children’s manifest best interest	Permanency now via adoption by caregivers benefits children	Father has played a supportive role despite incarceration; children maintain bonds; delay to reunify is reasonable	P.S.: termination in manifest best interest. D.S., Jr. & K.S.: termination not shown to meet manifest best interest
Whether termination is the least restrictive means to protect the children from harm	Adoption is necessary for permanency; waiting would leave children at a standstill	Less restrictive options (relative custody/guardianship, continued contact) suffice; no proof of harm	P.S.: termination is least restrictive. D.S., Jr. & K.S.: termination not least restrictive
Whether determinations must be individualized to each child	One uniform petition can address all children but outcomes must be child‑specific	Must assess each child’s bonds, placements, and harm risk separately	Court must make individualized findings; appellate court reversed as to two children where individualized proof lacking

Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991) (requires clear and convincing proof of statutory ground, manifest best interest, and least restrictive means)
B.C. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Families, 887 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2004) (incarceration analysis requires both quantitative and qualitative inquiry; effects on parent‑child relationship must be considered)
In re K.A., 880 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (termination analysis must be individualized for each child)
S.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 82 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (individualized determination requirement)
A.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 144 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (termination cannot be upheld where least restrictive means not proven and no harm shown)
J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 107 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (burden to prove absence of less restrictive measures)
S.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 132 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (insufficient evidence of harm precludes termination)