S.M., etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Families
202 So. 3d 769
| Fla. | 2016Background
- Mother of three children (born 2007–2010) had long-term substance abuse, transient housing, and failed to complete multiple case plans; youngest tested positive for drugs at birth.
- Children were sheltered, adjudicated dependent, and placed with relatives (great-aunt and cousin); great-aunt later died and cousin became pre-adoptive caregiver.
- DCF provided repeated services and case plans over ~4 years; mother repeatedly failed drug screens, refused/failed treatment, and missed court and plan requirements.
- Trial court found three statutory grounds for termination (including continuing threat to child welfare and failure to comply with case plan) and held termination was in the children’s manifest best interest; court adopted DCF’s proposed final judgment terminating parental rights.
- Mother conceded statutory grounds and best interests findings but argued termination was not the “least restrictive means” because relatives would permit continued contact and permanent guardianship was available.
- Florida Supreme Court granted conflict review to resolve whether Padgett’s “least restrictive means” prong requires trial courts to consider permanent guardianship (instead of adoption/termination) when a parent-child bond and relative placement allowing contact exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Padgett’s “least restrictive means” prong requires considering permanent guardianship instead of TPR when (1) grounds for termination are proven and (2) reunification would be harmful | S.M.: Because she has a loving bond and relatives will allow contact/visitation, termination is not the least restrictive means; permanent guardianship or other non-TPR permanency should be required | DCF/GAL: Least restrictive means focuses on whether the State made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate/reunify before filing TPR; availability of relative placement or continued limited contact does not preclude TPR after statutory grounds and best-interest findings | The Court: Trial courts are not required to consider permanent guardianship in lieu of termination once statutory grounds are proven and reunification is harmful; Padgett’s prong requires proof DCF made reasonable efforts prior to filing, not preservation of a bond post-removal |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991) (establishes that termination must be the least restrictive means and requires good-faith rehabilitation efforts before TPR)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in custody that requires heightened procedural protections before involuntary TPR)
- Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1982) (emphasizes the State’s strong interest in finality and timely permanency for children)