R.L. v. Department of Children & Families
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 9886
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This is a consolidated appeal from an order terminating parental rights and a final judgment as to R.L., mother of two, and J.G., father of J.Y.
- Course of action: the court affirmed the termination of R.L.'s rights but reversed and remanded as to J.G.
- DCF had minimal knowledge about J.G., his support payment, and his contact with J.Y.; no case plan was offered to J.G.
- DCF initially alleged abandonment for J.Y. but lacked sufficient information; reunification with J.Y. for J.G. was plausible given visitation and bond.
- The opinion discusses C.A.T. v. DCF and notes that termination must be least restrictive means and that a case plan should be offered where appropriate.
- The court remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion and corrected the judgment to reflect that R.L. did not abandon the children per the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of R.L.'s rights was proper | DCF argued grounds and best interests supported termination; least restrictive means shown. | R.L. contested the sufficiency of evidence and process regarding least restrictive means. | Affirmed as to R.L. |
| Whether termination of J.G.'s rights was proper | DCF sought termination due to concerns about J.G.'s involvement; argued least restrictive means supported. | J.G. argued existence of a parent-child bond and potential reunification via services. | Reversed as to J.G. and remanded |
| Whether the best interests findings for J.Y. were supported | Best interests findings aligned with termination to protect J.Y. | Findings not proven by substantial competent evidence. | Not supported as applied to J.Y.; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- C.A.T. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 10 So.3d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (DCF must show least restrictive means, may offer services to aid reunification)
- In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W., 658 So.2d 961 (Fla.1995) (clear and convincing standard; evidence must convince without hesitancy)
- N.L. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 843 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (definition and application of clear and convincing standard)
- M.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 866 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (analysis of least restrictive means and service options)
- M.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 920 So.2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (least restrictive means may require offering a case plan)
- C.B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 874 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (case plan as part of reunification efforts when appropriate)
- In re D.L.H., 990 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (expedited termination requires showing no benefit from services)