155 So. 3d 476
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- The Department sought termination of parental rights after finding statutory factors and manifest best interests supported termination.
- The trial court held termination was not the least restrictive means due to the availability of a nonadoptive relative placement (aunt) for permanency.
- The Department appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the least restrictive means standard by considering nonadoptive relative placement.
- The court relied on A.H. v. DCF and G.H. v. DCF to analyze measures short of termination, but found those cases did not require the outcome below.
- On appeal, the district court reversed and remanded to reevaluate least restrictive means without considering the nonadoptive relative placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May nonadoptive relative placement be considered in least restrictive means? | Department contends trial court impermissibly relied on relative care. | Trial court correctly weighed alternatives but misapplied law by factoring placement. | Remand to reassess without considering nonadoptive relative placement. |
| Do A.H. and G.H. control the outcome here? | These opinions permit shorter measures but not this case's facts to end termination. | They demonstrate alternatives exist other than termination. | A.H. and G.H. do not compel termination; remand for correct analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.C., 88 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (court misapplied least restrictive means by focusing on nonadoptive placement)
- A.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 144 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (measures short of termination available; lack of pre-existing guardianship)
- G.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 145 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (no conclusion that termination was required where less restrictive option exists)