W. W., Father of V.H., J.V.H.,J.G., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families
218 So. 3d 490
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Twins born 2010; father W.W. was incarcerated in Mississippi from 2011 (14-year sentence) and had minimal contact before and during dependency proceedings. Paternity established 2012.
- In April 2015 DCF sheltered the twins after allegations of neglect and parental drug use; twins adjudicated dependent and a reunification-focused case plan was entered.
- W.W.’s case-plan obligations were limited by incarceration: required phone visitation twice weekly; W.W. did not make required calls, claiming only collect-call access in prison.
- After ~12 months DCF filed to terminate parental rights (TPR) against both parents; mother died shortly after the petition was filed. DCF amended the petition to add incarceration-as-harm grounds for W.W.
- W.W. was released from prison five days after trial; he testified he had housing with his aunt and employment lined up and wished to care for the twins.
- Trial court found statutory grounds, best interests, and that termination was the least restrictive means; appellate court reversed, holding termination was not the least restrictive means under these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for TPR were proven | DCF: abandonment, failure to comply with case plan, and harm from continuing relationship with incarcerated parent supported TPR | W.W.: contested grounds; denied allegations; noted limitations due to incarceration and imminent release | Court: Competent substantial evidence supported statutory grounds (affirmed as to grounds) |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | DCF: permanency and children’s need for stable placement favored termination | W.W.: argued recent release imminent and ability to care for children weighed against termination | Court: Found termination in twins’ manifest best interest (trial court) but appellate focused on least restrictive means inquiry |
| Whether termination was the least restrictive means to protect children | DCF: permanency concerns after a year in foster care required termination; no pending adoptive placement | W.W.: argued reunification short of TPR was feasible given imminent release, available housing/employment, and no specific safety risk | Court: Reversed — DCF failed to prove no less-restrictive measures would protect children; termination not least restrictive under unique facts |
| Whether DCF made sufficient reunification efforts toward incarcerated parent | DCF: case plan and proceedings satisfied reunification efforts | W.W.: noted case plan was limited by incarceration and DCF made no special efforts after mother’s death or to reestablish parent-child bond before TPR | Court: Found DCF’s efforts insufficient here given father’s imminent release and absence of concrete safety concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. F.L., 880 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2004) (parents have fundamental liberty interest; State may supersede to protect children)
- Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991) (parental rights are not absolute)
- J.P. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 183 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (elements DCF must prove and least-restrictive-means explained)
- M.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 866 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (least restrictive means requires measures short of termination when possible)
- J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 107 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (termination invalid if DCF fails to show no alternatives short of TPR)
- Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (least restrictive means not intended to preserve parental bond at cost of child’s future)
- A.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 144 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (DCF burden to prove statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence)