L.H., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
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 parents appealed termination of their parental rights as to three children. The court affirmed termination as to the mother without comment and affirmed termination as to the father on two statutory grounds but reversed the termination ground based on failure to comply with the case plan, finding the record insufficient to support that ground.
The court affirmed termination of the father's parental rights on two statutory grounds (sections 39.806(1)(b) and 39.806(1)(d)(3)) but reversed termination based on section 39.806(1)(e)(1) for failure to substantially comply with the case plan, finding the record insufficient to support that ground.
[1] A trial court's order terminating parental rights may be affirmed in part and reversed in part.
[2] Termination of parental rights based on failure to substantially comply with a case plan requires that compliance was possible.
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“To terminate parental rights based on lack of compliance with the case plan, compliance must be possible.”
This establishes the legal standard that compliance must actually be feasible before termination can be granted on this ground.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP.C. (father) and L.H. (mother) were parents of three children. The father was incarcerated and completed available case plan tasks while incarcerated…
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 Case Plan Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
Beach, for appellant L.H., the mother. Andrew Feigenbaum of Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families.
Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha C. Valley, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem o/b/o S.H., L.H., and J.C.
PER CURIAM.
P.C., the father, and L.H., the mother, appeal an order terminating their parental rights as to their three children. We affirm the mother’s appeal without further comment. We also affirm termination of the father’s parental rights on two statutory grounds—section 39.806(1)(b) and 39.806(1)(d)(3)—but reverse termination based on section 39.806(1)(e)(1), failure to substantially comply with the case plan.
The Department concedes the record does not support a finding that the father failed to substantially comply with the case plan. The guardian ad litem does not concede error. To terminate parental rights based on lack of compliance with the case plan, compliance must be possible. K.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court cited only the father’s lack of communication with the children during their shelter as a reason for not substantially complying with the case plan. This alone is insufficient to support termination. The father completed the case plan tasks available to him while incarcerated. See T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 905 So. 2d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights on the other two statutory grounds, but reverse and remand for the trial court to remove section 39.806(1)(e)(1) as a ground for termination. See R.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 872 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
LEVINE, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 872 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- T.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 905 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- K.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 906 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)