In the Interest of N.F. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 82 So. 3d 1188

Department petitioned to terminate N.F.'s parental rights; circuit court granted termination, but on final hearing DCFS failed to prove grounds by clear and convincing evidence, so reversal is granted.
In Sept 2009 N.F. was arrested for a physical altercation; her young daughter stayed with a babysitter; N.F. did not arrange care or notify the babysitter.
Paternal grandparents obtained a shelter order and became custodians; N.F. consented to a dependency in Oct 2009.
DCFS offered a case plan aiming at reunification; by June 2010 N.F. completed most tasks; a home study found her residence unsuitable due to a roommate's substance abuse and a related dependency matter.
Paternal grandparents could no longer care for the child; the child was placed with a non-adoptive foster family; a new case manager in July 2010 planned reunification for a Sept 1, 2010 hearing.
N.F. missed the Sept 1, 2010 hearing and a Oct 6, 2010 visitation; later findings show she had been taking prescribed medication with possible drowsiness; the court then changed the permanency goal to adoption and suspended visitation.
On Oct 11, 2010 DCFS filed a petition to terminate rights; final hearing occurred Jan–Mar 2011; N.F. was arrested again for domestic violence during the proceedings; the court terminated rights solely under 39.806(l)(e) with three factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial compliance supports termination (l)(e)	N.F. substantially complied with the case plan.	N.F. failed to substantially comply and demonstrated lack of change.	No; substantial compliance not proven by facts.
Whether deprivation of basic needs supports termination	Child was deprived due to mother's conduct.	No evidence of deprivation of food, clothing, shelter, or medical care.	No; findings of deprivation not supported by evidence.
Whether there is a substantial risk of prospective neglect	Mother's conduct showed ongoing risk to the child.	No demonstrated ongoing risk; petition did not rely on this ground.	No; evidence failed to show prospective neglect; not properly relied upon.

J.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 6 So.3d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (clear and convincing standard and review framework for termination)
In re Davey, 645 So.2d 398 (Fla.1994) (definition and application of clear and convincing evidence)
R.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 33 So.3d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (deferential standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency)
R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 22 So.3d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (substantial compliance defined; shortcoming must affect safety)
E.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 937 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (proper grounds and evidence required for termination)
C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 974 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (hollow assertions insufficient to support termination)
Norris v. Norris, 926 So.2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (conclusory opinions without factual basis are inadequate)
C.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 9 So.3d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (due process and notice of grounds required in termination petitions)
M.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 866 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (ongoing issues must be shown to sustain termination)
R.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 939 So.2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (need for evidence showing child witnessed or affected by violence)