R.L., THE FATHER v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
273 So. 3d 1012
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- J.L., born substance-exposed, was briefly reunified with parents, then removed; father later incarcerated after pleading nolo contendere to aggravated battery related to conduct with a 14-year-old tenant.
- While incarcerated, the father sent only one letter to J.L., had limited supervised calls that ceased over a year before the termination hearing, and did not send money to the child.
- J.L. was reunified with the mother for a period, but after her relapse and a failed placement he was placed with foster parents who plan to adopt him.
- The Department petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights; the mother’s rights were terminated and she did not appeal.
- The trial court found the father abandoned J.L., terminated his parental rights, and also found (unsupported) that the father caused serious bodily injury to the 14-year-old victim in the separate criminal matter.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department/Guardian Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether competent substantial evidence supports finding father caused serious bodily injury to another child (§ 39.806(1)(h)) | Criminal plea without restitution does not establish serious bodily injury; no evidence of injury here | Father’s aggravated battery plea implies serious bodily injury under statute | Reversed as to this ground — no evidentiary support for serious bodily injury finding |
| Whether competent substantial evidence supports abandonment finding (§ 39.806(1)(b)) | Father contends incarceration limits ability to parent and he completed case plan to extent possible | Father failed to maintain meaningful contact or provide support while able; minimal efforts (one letter) | Affirmed — abandonment finding supported by competent substantial evidence |
| Whether termination is in the child’s manifest best interests | Father sought custody post-release and claimed desire for relationship | Child bonded with foster parents; stability and adoption plan favored termination | Affirmed — termination in child’s manifest best interests |
| Whether termination is least restrictive means to protect child from serious harm | Father argued for preservation of parental bond and more services | Termination grounded on abandonment removes obligation for additional reunification services; preserving parental bond would harm child’s future stability | Affirmed — termination is least restrictive means |
Key Cases Cited
- B.K. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 166 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standards for termination and appellate review)
- M.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 187 So. 3d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (incarcerated parent sent only two letters; abandonment affirmed)
- B.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 237 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (incarceration alone insufficient; consider efforts to maintain contact)
- In re T.H., 979 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (limited prison opportunities to perform parental duties must be considered)
- S.M. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 202 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2016) (child’s best interests and bonding with caregivers can justify termination over preserving parental bond)
- J.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 264 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (procedural and evidentiary standards for termination appeals)