J.B. v. Department of Children & Families
107 So. 3d 1196
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Appellants challenge trial court's order terminating parental rights after six prior terminations (2005–2009).
- V.B., born in 2012, was sheltered immediately; Department sought adoption by the same adoptive parents of the six siblings.
- Department relied on three grounds: prior involuntary terminations (l(i)), continuing course of conduct (l(c)), and three prior removals (l(Z)).
- Lead family counselor testified about past terminations, lack of case plans completed, and belief Appellants could not care for V.B.; no reunification services were offered.
- Father and Mother testified to employment, housing efforts, and learning from past mistakes; Guardian Ad Litem noted housing was appropriate.
- Trial court granted expedited termination, finding clear and convincing evidence under l(i) and l(c) that termination was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior terminations prove substantial risk | Appellants argue prior terminations show risk to V.B. | Department argues prior terminations and current risk support termination. | No; prior terminations alone insufficient to prove substantial risk. |
| Whether termination is least restrictive means under l(i) | Fla. law requires least restrictive means, not just risk. | Department contends termination necessary given history. | No; Department failed to show least restrictive means to protect V.B. |
| Whether l(c) termination supported by current evidence | Past conduct shows potential risk to V.B. | Past issues, but current home was safe; no evidence of imminent harm. | No; insufficient to show ongoing threat irrespective of services. |
| Whether Department must provide change-in-circumstances evidence after prior terminations | Change in circumstances could negate risk. | Department not required to prove reunification but must show least restrictive means. | Yes; burden on Department to show least restrictive means; lack of current risk undermines termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. L.F., 880 So.2d 602 (Fla. 2004) (totality of circumstances; prior terminations relevant but not controlling)
- L.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 835 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (prospective neglect requires prospect of future harm; cannot assume no improvement)
- Palmer v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 547 So.2d 981 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (test for prospective neglect: can be termination if future behavior will clearly harm the child)
- J.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 994 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (best interests not reached where termination not supported by evidence of risk)
- M.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 920 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (limits on reliance on past neglect when current evidence insufficient)
- T.C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 816 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (parens cannot be terminated solely due to poverty or lack of resources)
- A.H. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children and Family Services, 85 So.3d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (standard of review for evidence: competent, substantial evidence required)