LW v. Department of Children and Families
71 So. 3d 221
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In March 2010, trial court found probable cause to shelter the child due to alleged sexual abuse by the father and lack of protection by the mother.
- DCF filed a dependency petition and placed the child with paternal grandparents; mother prohibited from contact.
- In May 2010, father surrendered parental rights; DCF filed for termination and permanent commitment; mother allegedly abandoned and unlocated.
- Mother later located; reunification plan offered, but the child objected; petition was dismissed and then amended to name the child as petitioner.
- Prior to trial, parties stipulated no Case Plan had been provided and no dependency adjudication; child had not seen mother for about 3 years 9 months.
- Evidence showed long separation, mother’s poverty, failure to support or communicate, and a single inappropriate act by the mother in the presence of the child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition denial based on failure to allege reasonable reunification efforts was error | L.W. argues no Case Plan and no reasonable efforts were pled. | DCF contends abandonment supports termination regardless of a Case Plan and efforts. | No reversible error; abandonment supported termination. |
| Whether termination was the least restrictive means to protect the child | Mother contends lesser measures could preserve the bond. | No bond with the child exists; placement with grandparents serves best interests. | Termination can be least restrictive under the circumstances. |
| Whether mother's lack of contact was her fault and constitutes abandonment | Mother asserts external obstacles excuse lack of contact. | Mother deliberately abandoned the child for years despite opportunities to contact. | Evidence supports abandonment; timely contact did not occur. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.J. v. K.A.O., 951 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (least restrictive means requires protective measures short of termination if possible)
- C.A.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 830 So.2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (termination may be the least restrictive means in abandonment cases)
- In re Baby E.A.W., 658 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1995) (clear and convincing evidence required to terminate parental rights)