JOEL VALDES, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, APPELLANT,
v.
S.B. AND M.B., APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny permanent termination of parental rights based on evidence of parental rehabilitation, but reversed the order requiring continued therapy with a therapist who believed the parents were not abusive, finding this inconsistent with the court's own factual finding of abuse and neglect.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that permanent termination of parental rights is not in the best interests of the children based on evidence of parental rehabilitation efforts. However, the court erred in ordering continued therapy with Dr. Whyte, whose belief that the parents are not abusive conflicts with the court's factual finding of abuse and neglect. The order must be amended to substitute a new therapist.
[1] A trial court may deny a petition for involuntary commitment even when abuse and neglect are proven by clear and convincing evidence, if permanent commitment is not in th…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a continuation of therapy sessions with a therapist who maintains that the parents are not responsible for the abuse and n…
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“the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in determining that the permanent termination of parental rights is not in the best interests of the children”
Establishes the standard of review and affirms the trial court's discretionary decision regarding reunification goals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS.B. and M.B. were found to be abused and neglected while in their parents' custody. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of abuse 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 Reunification cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order denying her petition for involuntary commitment. During the hearing on appellant’s petition, overwhelming evidence was presented indicating that appel-lees, S.B. and M.B., were abused and neglected while in the physical custody of their parents.
However, the parents’ therapist, Dr. Edward J. Whyte, testified that he believed the parents were not responsible for the abuse. The order denying appellant’s petition finds that appellant proved by clear and convincing evidence that the parents abused and neglected S.B. and M.B., but that permanent commitment is not in the best interests of the children. The order states that the parents and HRS should enter into a new performance agreement to enable the family to achieve the goal of reunification, and that the parents and children should continue to have visits and family sessions over a period of several months under the supervision of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Dr. Whyte.
Our review of the record indicates that there is ample evidence to support the trial court’s findings that the parents have shown diligent efforts to rehabilitate themselves, have greatly improved their housing and employment situation and have had excellent visits with the children.
Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in determining that the perma nent termination of parental rights is not in the best interests of the children and we affirm that portion of the order appealed.
However, the requirement in the order that the parents continue their therapy sessions with Dr. Whyte conflicts with the court’s finding that the parents have abused and neglected the children. Since the therapy sessions constitute the parents’ primary means of addressing their abuse problem, the trial court should not have ordered the continuation of those sessions with a psychologist who maintains that the parents are not abusive.
Therefore, we reverse and remand the matter to the trial court and instruct the court to amend its order to substitute a new therapist to carry out the intent of its order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.