J.C., THE MOTHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
264 So. 3d 973
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- In 2017 the mother (J.C.) and the father of one child were incarcerated on federal sex‑trafficking charges; the two children (ages 7 and 2) were placed with their maternal grandfather.
- Mother was convicted on three federal counts and received concurrent sentences totaling about 15 years; father of J.W. received 25 years.
- DCF filed an expedited petition to terminate parental rights alleging: (1) abandonment under § 39.806(1)(b) (as defined by § 39.01(1)), and (2) incarceration constituting a significant portion of the children’s minorities under § 39.806(1)(d)1.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, the mother participated by phone, testified that she regularly called the children (3–4 times/week) and mailed educational materials, and her father/grandfather was caring for the children and willing to adopt.
- The child advocate and guardian ad litem recommended termination and adoption to secure permanency; both acknowledged the children were bonded with caregivers and that the mother communicated by phone.
- Trial court terminated parental rights on both statutory grounds; mother appealed, challenging the abandonment finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by abandonment under § 39.806(1)(b) (per § 39.01(1)) | Mother argued she maintained a substantial, positive relationship (regular phone contact, visitation before transfer, sending materials) and had no ability to financially support while incarcerated | DCF argued incarceration + inability to provide support amounted to abandonment | Reversed as to § 39.806(1)(b): court erred. Incarceration alone and indigency do not establish abandonment where parent maintained regular communication and no evidence showed ability to support while able |
| Whether termination was supported by § 39.806(1)(d)1. (incarceration constituting a significant portion of the children’s minorities) | Mother argued the court focused only on sentence length and not on harm to permanency interests | DCF argued fifteen‑year incarceration would span virtually the children’s minorities and impede permanency; caregivers can adopt | Affirmed under § 39.806(1)(d)1.: competent substantial evidence that 15‑year incarceration would constitute a significant portion (quantitative and qualitative inquiry) and termination served children’s need for permanency |
| Whether termination was in children’s manifest best interests and least restrictive means | Mother argued ongoing parent–child communication and potential continued relationships weigh against termination | DCF and GAL argued caregivers provide stable, adoptive home, children bonded to caregivers, termination promotes permanency | Court findings that termination was in manifest best interests and the least restrictive means were supported by competent substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- B.K. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 166 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (elements and burdens for termination of parental rights)
- M.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 187 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (affirming where minimal communication showed abandonment)
- D.S. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 164 So. 3d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (incarceration analysis requires quantitative and qualitative inquiry re: permanency)
- In re B.W., 498 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1986) (indigency or incarceration resulting in inability to provide support does not, by itself, constitute abandonment)
- B.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 237 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (insufficient evidence of abandonment where incarcerated parent had minimal ability to contribute and maintained communication)