ALFRED AND PATRICIA DARKES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 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.
The Darkes appeal the permanent termination of their parental rights to five children. The trial court based termination solely on failure to comply with performance agreements and prior findings of neglect, but the appellate court reversed, holding that permanent termination requires clear and convincing evidence of neglect, abuse, or abandonment at the termination hearing itself.
Permanent termination of parental rights cannot be based solely on failure to comply with performance agreements or prior findings of neglect. Termination requires a showing of neglect, abuse, or abandonment supported by clear and convincing evidence presented at the termination hearing itself.
[1] Failure to substantially comply with a performance agreement is not, by itself, a sufficient legal basis for permanently terminating a parent's fundamental right to custo…
[2] Permanent termination of parental rights requires a showing of neglect, abuse, or abandonment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Failure to comply with a performance agreement is not by itself a sufficient legal basis for permanently terminating a parent's fundamental right to the custody of his or her children.”
Establishes the core holding that non-compliance with performance agreements alone cannot justify termination of parental rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Darkes entered into three performance agreements with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The trial court found they faile…
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 Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Appellants appeal from that portion of an order which permanently terminated their parental rights to their five youngest children.1 The basis for the permanent termination was a finding by the trial court that appellants failed to substantially comply with the requirements of three performance agreements2 entered into by them and HRS, and that the children were neglected as defined in Chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes. We reverse.
Failure to comply with a performance agreement is not by itself a sufficient legal basis for permanently terminating a parent’s fundamental right to the custody of his or her children. In the Interest of R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986). Permanent termination of parental rights must be based on a showing of neglect, abuse or abandonment.3 The court’s prior finding of neglect, which resulted in the children’s dependency status in this case, is not sufficient to satisfy the burden of proving neglect in a permanent termination proceeding.4 Further, appellee' failed to present at this hearing clear and convincing evidence of neglect of the children by appellants. Thus, termination of appellants’ parental rights cannot be sustained on that basis.5
REVERSED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
. The order denied termination as to appellants' two older children and continued their custody with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for six months.
. § 409.168, Fla.Stat. (1985).
. In the Interest of R.W., 481 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In the Interest of T.S. v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 464 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); § 39.41(1)(f)(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. In the Interest of T.S. v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 464 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); In the Interest of L.T., 464 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Torres v. Van Eepoel, 98 So. 2d 735 (FIa.1957); In the Interest of L.T., 464 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); § 39.41(1)(f), Fla.Stat. (1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of K.H. v. State, 527 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…to the custody of her child unless the record also discloses evidence legally supporting a finding of abuse, abandonment or neglect. See In the Interest of R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986); Darkes v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 495 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). As previously observed, we have decided that the lower court’s finding of neglect had no legal evidentiary support; therefore, even if there were sufficient evidence in the record that the mother had violated the provisions of t…
-
Laurian Anne Rauen Spankie v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 505 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…children. In the Interest of R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986). Permanent termination of parental rights must be based on a showing of neglect, abuse or abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. Id.; Darkes v. Dept, of Health and Rehab. Services, 495 So. 2d 873 [*1358] (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); § 39.41(l)(f)(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). In In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the court held that neglect or abuse may be established prospectively; that is, parental rights may be terminated…1 / 2
-
Hroncich v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 667 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…occurred prior to Veronica being adjudicated dependent. The state may not rely on an adjudication of dependency as proof of factors necessary to support the termination of parental rights. Darkes v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 495 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In the Interest of T.S., 464 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In addition, the evidence testified to occurred prior to March 1993, when Hroncieh was evicted from her apartment. The only testimony in the record about this eviction…
Previewing 3 of 5 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 R.W. v. Pollock, 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1986)
- In the Interest of J. L. P., 416 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of L.T. and C.T. v. State, 464 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Ricketson v. Baessler, 98 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1957)
- Annice A. Torres v. VAN Eepoel, 98 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1957)
- In the Interest of R.W. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 481 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Gulf Cent. Warehouse Ctr., Inc., 464 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)