J. P., mother of T. P. v. Florida Department of Children and Families
183 So. 3d 1198
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- T.P., a toddler with nephrotic syndrome (potentially fatal if untreated), was hospitalized multiple times beginning August 2012; the Department filed a dependency petition after a hospitalization tied to the mother's failure to give prescribed medication.
- The child required daily Albustix® urine tests and a low-sodium/low-fat diet to detect and prevent relapses; Albustix® were not covered by Medicaid and cost about a dollar per day.
- The mother sometimes failed to use Albustix®, stole strips from the hospital, declined offers of help from DCF/FamiliesFirst, and admitted a relapse in April 2013 was her fault; the child experienced significant fluid retention and was removed to foster medical care.
- During supervised visits after removal, the mother repeatedly provided prohibited foods and overfed the child, resulting in elevated protein levels and signs of relapse coinciding with visits.
- The Department sought termination of parental rights under section 39.806(1)(c); the trial court found statutory grounds, that termination was in the child’s manifest best interest, and that termination satisfied the least restrictive means test; the First DCA affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | J.P.'s Argument | DCF's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds under §39.806(1)(c) were met (parental conduct threatens life/health despite services) | Mother argues evidence did not show continuing threat and reweighing is improper | Mother repeatedly failed to follow medical plan, rejected offered services, and caused relapses putting child at risk | Affirmed: competent substantial evidence supports §39.806(1)(c) finding |
| Whether termination was in the child’s manifest best interest under §39.810 | Mother likely argues preservation of parental bond and improvements in other areas (substance, housing) justify reunification | Child’s medical fragility and mother’s noncompliance with diet/testing make termination necessary for child’s welfare | Affirmed: trial court made findings on all 11 factors and termination was in child’s best interest |
| Whether termination satisfied the least restrictive means (Padgett) | Mother argues alternatives existed and termination is extreme | DCF offered case plan and services; mother failed the critical medical-care tasks despite training and time | Affirmed: services/case plan were offered; further efforts would be futile; termination was least restrictive means |
| Standard of appellate review | Mother urges appellate reweighing of evidence | DCF relies on highly deferential clear-and-convincing/substantial-evidence standard | Affirmed: appellate court defers to trial court where evidence could reasonably be found clear and convincing |
Key Cases Cited
- C.D. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 164 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA) (applies highly deferential review in TPR appeals)
- N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA) (standard for appellate review of TPR clear-and-convincing findings)
- M.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 866 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA) (§39.806(1)(c) requires showing services would be futile or threat remains)
- Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.) (least restrictive means test; state must show good faith rehabilitation efforts/case plan)
- Rathburn v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 826 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA) (statutory ground requirement for TPR)
- J.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 126 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA) (presumption of correctness for clear-and-convincing findings)
- C.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 812 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA) (need for full fact-finding on best-interest inquiry)