IN THE INTEREST OF L.T. AND C.T., MINOR CHILDREN. WILLIE KNIGHT AND DEBORAH TEAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This appeal challenges a parental rights termination order. The court clarifies that a performance agreement is not always required before terminating parental rights in clear cases of abuse or neglect, but holds that termination requires clear and convincing evidence and specific findings of fact, not merely a prior dependency adjudication.
A performance agreement is not a prerequisite to permanent commitment in clear cases of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment. To lawfully sever parental rights and order adoption commitment, there must be clear and convincing evidence on the record and the trial court must make specific findings of fact supported by that evidence. A prior adjudication of dependency using only a preponderance standard does not satisfy the statutory requirements for termination.
[1] Adverse judicial rulings do not constitute sufficient grounds to disqualify a judge.
[2] A parent cannot be found guilty of neglect if the impairment to the child's physical health is only insignificant.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In permanent commitment proceedings the neglect, abuse or abandonment allegations must be established by stringent clear and convincing evidence standards.”
Establishes the heightened standard of proof required for parental rights termination, citing Santosky v. Kramer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo minor children, L.T. and C.T., were the subject of proceedings to terminate parental rights and authorize adoption. The parents, Willie Knight and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abandonment Of Child cases and more on FLexlaw
[*202] DAUKSCH, Judge.
We withdraw the previously issued opinion in this matter and substitute the following instead.
This is an appeal from an order terminating parental rights and ordering the adoption of two children. The parents appeal the order on two grounds, the first of which is the assertion that section 409.-168 requires the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to enter into a performance agreement before proceedings can be instituted to terminate parental rights. We have decided this issue contrary to the position of the appellant in In Interest of C.B., 453 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Gerry v. Aulls, 457 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). But cf. In Interest of C.T.G., 460 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 11, 1984) where the First District Court of Appeal held that the preparation of a performance agreement is mandatory prior to instituting permanent commitment proceedings in every case where a child is placed in foster care. The first district’s opinion in In Interest of C.T.G. fails to make the distinction between those cases where the abuse, neglect or abandonment is such that permanent commitment is inevitable and the child is placed in foster care pending institution of such proceedings and those cases where a child is temporarily removed from the home and placed in foster care because it is in the child’s best interest under the circumstances as they existed at the time the child was removed. In In Interest of C.B. and Gerry v. Aulls this court held that when a child is adjudicated dependent in a clear case of child abuse, neglect or abandonment, a performance agreement is not a prerequisite to permanent commitment.
As a second point on appeal the appellant alleges error because the trial court failed to make an adequate inquiry and a proper finding that the children were neglected or abused to the extent that the ultimate severing of parental rights was warranted. We agree with appellant that an earlier adjudication or finding of neglect does not satisfy the statute which pertains to the termination of parental rights.
The standard of proof in an initial adjudication of dependency requires proof only by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 39.408(b), Fla.Stat. In permanent commitment proceedings the neglect, abuse or abandonment allegations must be established by stringent clear and convincing evidence standards. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). Thus we hold that in order for the court to lawfully enter an order severing parental rights and commitment for adoption there must be clear and convincing evidence on the record in the commitment proceedings and that the trial court must make specific findings of fact supported by that evidence. We certify that this decision is in conflict with In Interest of C.M.H., 413 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The order is reversed and this cause remanded for a new hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Roshonda Keys Gaines v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 711 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ilitative Services, 523 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1353 (Fla.1988); Spankie v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 505 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 513 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1987); In the Interest of L.T., 464 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We disagree, however, that the state showed by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court should terminate the parental rights as to the youngest boy, L.K. Further, we hold there was insufficient evidence even to find th…
-
In the Interest of G.D.H. and A.J.S., 498 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…r section 39.408.(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), “[i]n a hearing on a petition in which it is alleged that the child is dependent, a preponderance of evidence will be required to establish the state of dependency.” See also In the Interest of L.T., 464 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (standard of proof in an initial adjudication of dependency requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence). The statutory definition of abuse is found in section 39.-01(2), Florida Statutes (1985): “Abuse” means any willful…
-
White v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 483 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…with the proceeding to permanently terminate parental rights in this case. There is a vital difference between the standard of proof in an initial adjudication of dependency and that in a permanent commitment proceeding. See In the Interest of L.T., 464 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In this case, that difference in the burden of proof was ignored and the judicial notice of the initial adjudication of dependency, which was based on the parents uncounseled judicial admissions, was taken as clear and convincin…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982)
- In the Interest of [C. M. H.], 413 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- In re the Interest of C.B. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 453 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- In the Interest of C.T.G., 460 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Gerry v. The Honorable Ernest C. Aulls, Jr., 457 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)