IN THE INTEREST OF D.J., M.J., R.B. AND T.S.
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.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four minor children, arguing that the trial court erred by not requiring a performance agreement or permanent placement plan before terminating her rights. The appellate court affirms, holding that Florida's newly enacted extraordinary procedures statute permitted termination without such prerequisites where severe abuse demonstrated the manifest best interests of the children.
The court held that Section 39.464(2) clearly applied to this case because the severe abuse inflicted by the mother on two of her children demonstrated conduct that threatened the life and well-being of the children, satisfying the statutory requirement for extraordinary termination procedures even though HRS had previously provided services.
[1] A state may petition for termination of parental rights without offering a performance agreement or permanent placement plan when the manifest best interests of the child…
[2] A state may petition for termination of parental rights under extraordinary procedures when a parent has abandoned a child and their identity or whereabouts are unknown a…
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“Whenever it appears that the manifest best interests of the child demand it, the state may petition for termination of parental rights without offering a performance agreement or permanent placement plan to the parents.”
Establishes the core holding of Section 39.464(2) allowing extraordinary termination procedures without prerequisite plans
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother had four minor children. Two of her children suffered severe injuries: one sustained a fractured skull and subdural hematoma from being str…
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 Permanent Placement Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The mother of four minor children appeals from a final order terminating her parental rights to those children, and argues that the circumstances did not require resort to the extraordinary procedures provided in Section 39.464(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and that the lower court erred in terminating her rights without requiring the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to participate in a performance agreement or permanent placement plan. We disagree and affirm.
Before the enactment of section 39.-464(2), it was well settled that a performance agreement or plan was a prerequisite to permanent commitment proceedings brought under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (1985). See Burk v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 476 So. 2d 1275 (Fla.1985); In the Interest of H., 494 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Effective October 1, 1987, however, the legislature enacted section 39.464, which provides in part:
(2) EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURES.—
(a) Whenever it appears that the manifest best interests of the child demand it, the state may petition for termination of parental rights without offering a performance agreement or permanent placement plan to the parents. A petition for termination of parental rights under this subsection may be filed simultaneously with the petition for dependency under part III of this chapter but shall be filed prior to the dependency adjudicatory hearing in s. 39.408.
(b) The state may petition under this subsection only under the following circumstances:
1. Abandonment of a child by the parent where the identity or whereabouts of the parent are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent search ...; or
2. Severe or continuous abuse or neglect of the child or other children by the parent that demonstrates that the parent’s conduct threatens the life or well-being of the child regardless of the provision of services as evidenced by having had services provided through a previous performance agreement or permanent placement plan.
(Emphasis added.)
In the instant case, the record clearly evidences severe abuse of two of appellant’s children — one suffered a fractured skull and subdural hematoma as a result of his head being struck against a door, and the other suffered a subdural hematoma caused by vigorous shaking — which had the effect of threatening the life and well-being of each of her children, even though HRS had been assisting appellant and her family for several years. Under the circumstances, we find the statute clearly applicable to the instant case and
AFFIRM.
SHIVERS, C.J., and NIMMONS, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burk v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 476 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1985)
- In the Interest of H., 494 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)