E.R.-J. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 86 So. 3d 574

E.R.-J. seeks termination of parental rights to his five-year-old daughter N.R.-G. based on failure to substantially comply with the case plan; prior reunifications occurred after he remediated initial concerns.
N.R.-G. and her brother A.G. were sheltered in 2007 due to concerns about the Mother's abuse and the Father's discipline and living conditions; the Mother was deported and the Father initially complied with services.
The Father failed to maintain stable housing and, after a move to Oklahoma, concealed the move and later relocated back to Florida; he faced ongoing housing and employment challenges and the Department questioned his progress.
A no-contact order limited visits; two parenting assessments (2010 and 2011) found the Father's prognosis poor, but there was a language barrier and insufficient time for therapy before further visits.
The adjudicatory and best-interest proceedings culminated in termination of parental rights as to N.R.-G. on grounds of failure to substantially comply, which the trial court found supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The appellate court reversed, holding the Department failed to prove substantial compliance was lacking due to financial constraints and inadequate reunification efforts, and remanded to reinstate services for reunification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there clear and convincing evidence that the Father failed to substantially comply with the case plan?	Department contends Father failed to obtain housing and employment and to benefit from services.	Father argues noncompliance was due to financial/resource constraints and Department failures to provide reasonable reunification efforts.	No; failure to comply was not proven substantial and was largely due to lack of resources and agency shortfalls.

N.F. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 82 So.3d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (substantial compliance requires remedy of underlying circumstances; agency must prove ongoing abuse/neglect by clear and convincing evidence)
R.F. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 22 So.3d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (clear and convincing evidence required; failure must be remedied for reunification unless due to resources or agency failure)
Henderson v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 480 So.2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (poverty/limited resources cannot, alone, justify termination; housing/employment barriers may be beyond control)
T.C.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 816 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (parental rights not terminated solely due to lack of resources; must show neglect/abuse with remediable circumstances)
R.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 33 So.3d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (clear and convincing standard; termination requires substantial evidence of continuing abuse/neglect not remedied by parent)