Department of Children & Family Services v. K.D.
88 So. 3d 977
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DCF filed an expedited petition to terminate parental rights of K.D. and Z.H. based on egregious conduct toward Z.C.(1) and aggravated child abuse.
- Trial court found grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence but denied termination due to a sua sponte consideration of a permanent guardianship with the maternal grandparents.
- The trial court placed the children in permanent guardianship with the grandparents, rather than terminating rights, citing a lesser restrictive option.
- This court sua sponte reviewed the case en banc to address recurring issues arising from termination based on abuse of a sibling.
- The court recognized a nexus between Z.C.(1)’s abuse and substantial risk of harm to Z.C.(2) under Padgett/R.F./F.L. framework.
- The opinion reverses the guardianship order and remands to reconsider termination with proper manifest best interests and least restrictive means analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus between sibling abuse and risk to the other child | K.D. v. DCF argued nexus supported termination of both. | DCF argued Nexus required, but trial erred in application. | Yes; nexus properly established for both children. |
| Manifest best interests analysis | DCF maintained termination is in best interests despite guardianship option. | Trial court subordinated best interests to guardianship availability. | Trial court erred by giving guardianship availability undue weight. |
| Least restrictive means standard | Padgett/T.M. require least restrictive means unless extraordinary circumstances exist. | Relatives or guardianship can be least restrictive in some cases. | The court misapplied least restrictive means; expedited termination permitted without plans. |
| Procedural posture to guardianship at adjudication | Guardian placement should be decided with proper notice and evidence. | Trial court could consider permanent guardianship as disposition. | Trial court precluded from sua sponte placing in guardianship at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1991) (least restrictive means and case plan requirements for termination)
- Florida Dep’t of Children & Families v. L. (F.L.), 880 So.2d 602 (Fla. 2004) (reaffirmed need to show least restrictive means in termination cases)
- R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 2000) (totality of circumstances guiding nexus analysis)
- K.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 880 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (nexus considerations in termination based on sibling abuse)
- In re T.M., 641 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1994) (least restrictive means not always required when extraordinary abuse exists)
- In re M.F., 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 2000) (expedited termination context and related analyses)