J.E. v. Department of Children & Families
126 So. 3d 424
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Father appeals final judgment terminating his parental rights to J.V.E.; trial court relied on multiple grounds under Fla. Stat. §39.806(l)(b), (c), (e)(1), (e)(2) and terminated the mother’s rights as well.
- Child removed to shelter care and placed with maternal aunt; GAL recommended termination after nearly two years of proceedings.
- Father failed to substantially comply with the case plan, completed only subset of required treatment, and had ongoing drug-related issues.
- Father repeatedly missed drug screenings, tested positive for marijuana on several dates in 2012, and never produced a negative screen.
- Father’s visitation was irregular and infrequent, payments to caregiver were sporadic, and he showed little concern for the child’s health during illness.
- Court found termination in child’s best interests and the least restrictive means to protect the child, affirming the trial court’s order; mother's appeal was handled separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by grounds in §39.806. | Father abandoned child and failed to comply with case plan. | DCF proved abandonment and ongoing neglect/abandonment under §39.806(1)(e). | Yes; supported by multiple grounds. |
| Whether termination served the child’s best interests. | Termination would disrupt father’s parental rights. | Child stable with caregiver and adoption likely; best interests require termination. | Yes; in child’s best interests. |
| Whether termination was the least restrictive means. | Reunification efforts were ongoing and should be continued. | Continued reunification efforts failed; termination necessary to protect child. | Yes; least restrictive means met. |
| Whether evidence was competent and substantial to support termination. | Evidence showing noncompliance and neglect justifies termination. | DCF’s efforts were reasonable; termination appropriate. | Yes; competent substantial evidence supported. |
| Whether any error affected the outcome given multiple grounds. | Other grounds independently support termination; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 22 So.3d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (review of termination standards; deferential standard of review applied)
- D.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 930 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (clear and convincing evidence standard; appellate deference)
- In re G.C., 6 So.3d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (best interests and least restrictive means considerations)
- J.C. v. K.K., 64 So.3d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (least restrictive means; rehabilitation efforts emphasized)
- M.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 866 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (strong efforts to overcome addiction cited in termination analysis)
- R.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 872 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming termination when one ground supported)