G.H. v. Department of Children & Families
145 So. 3d 884
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- P.G.H. was sexually abused by her older brother in 2011; the brother was adjudicated delinquent and removed from the home.
- In March 2013, Families First Network returned the brother to the mother’s home; the child alleged a second abuse incident, for which the brother was charged but acquitted.
- The Department petitioned to terminate the parental rights of appellant G.H., Sr. (the natural father) and the mother; the mother is not a party to this appeal.
- The Department sought termination under section 39.806(l)(c), arguing that continued parental involvement would threaten the child’s health and safety.
- The trial court found a strong emotional bond but concluded that termination was less harmful than continued parental involvement; it also considered guardianship as a potential alternative.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that termination was not shown to be the least restrictive means and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was the least restrictive means to protect the child. | G.H. argued termination is necessary to protect P.G.H. | Department contends termination is warranted to prevent ongoing risk. | Terminating rights was not shown to be the least restrictive means. |
| Whether the Department proceeded in a narrowly tailored manner regarding fundamental liberty interests. | Appellant asserts rights to parent must be narrowly tailored. | Department contends safeguards and alternatives were considered. | Termination was not narrowly tailored based on record evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. (1982)) (fundamental liberty interest in parent-child relationship; strict scrutiny for termination)
- Padgett v. Dept of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1991) (clear and convincing evidence required; least restrictive means)
- N.S. & D.R. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 36 So.3d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (narrowly tailored process for termination)
- D.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 79 So.3d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (least restrictive means analysis)
- In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1989) (due process in least restrictive means analysis)
- A.W. v. Dept of Children & Families, 969 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (due process considerations in termination)