S.B. v. Department of Children & Families
132 So. 3d 1243
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- S.B. is father of three daughters; DCF sought involuntary termination of parental rights under section 39.806(l)(d)3., alleging continued relationship would be harmful and would deny permanency.
- The only ground asserted by DCF was incarceration-related harm; no other grounds were alleged or proven.
- S.B. was incarcerated for driving under the influence (DUIs), with three prior convictions (2000, 2003, 2004) and a 2012 imprisonment after a fourth DUI.
- Children were removed from their mother in 2013 and placed in foster care, later separated into multiple foster homes for about sixteen months before trial.
- DCF presented evidence of S.B.’s ongoing relationship with the children—letters, attempts to maintain contact, and participation in classes—while he was imprisoned; however, no evidence showed the children were harmed by his prior conduct.
- The 2012 amendments to section 39.806(l)(d)3. shifted focus from a fixed substantial time portion to a qualitative analysis of factors including harm and permanency; the court must determine if continuing the relationship would be harmful and if termination is in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCF proved by clear and convincing evidence that continuing the parent-child relationship would be harmful. | S.B. argues DCF failed to show harm; incarceration alone or past conduct did not prove harm. | DCF contends the amended statute supports termination where continued relationship harms permanency and the parent’s criminal history is a factor. | No competent substantial evidence of harm; petition dismissed. |
| Whether the 2012 amendments allow termination when there is insufficient evidence under factors (a)-(c). | N.S. and related authorities show lack of evidence under (a)-(c) precludes termination. | DCF argues the amendments permit considering broader factors and potential harm. | Remand not required; termination improperly granted; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether incarceration and criminal history alone justify termination given this case’s facts. | Criminal history alone is not sufficient for termination. | Amendments permit evaluating broader context, including impact on permanency. | Incarceration alone does not support termination; evidence insufficient. |
| Whether it would be in the children’s best interests to terminate or to maintain a potential parental relationship with S.B. | Termination would sever bonds; permanency possible through familial placements. | Termination would promote permanence with new caregivers. | Best interest supported keeping possibility of reunification and not terminating. |
| Whether the court erred in considering placement and permanency prospects given the foster-care history. | Relatives were available but not all four children; permanency could be with father. | DCF cannot place all four children with one relative. | No evidence that termination would advance permanency; dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re N.S., 898 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (trial court must consider harm with the statutory factors for incarcerated parents)
- In re E.I.F., 872 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (criminal history alone not enough; treatment and new leaf evidence considered)
- In re A.W., 816 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (substantial portion test considered; later amended standard shifted qualitative analysis)
- W.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 811 So.2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (context of incarceration and parental provision examined)
- In re J.B., 923 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (fundamental liberty interest; incarceration alone not sufficient)