IN THE INTEREST OF M.S., L.S., AND J.S., MINOR CHILDREN
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.
Parents appealed a trial court's order terminating their parental rights to three minor children. The appellate court affirmed, finding clear and convincing evidence that all statutory prerequisites for termination were satisfied, including the parents' substantial failure to comply with performance agreements and placement plans.
The trial court properly terminated parental rights because all statutory prerequisites were satisfied by clear and convincing evidence: the children were adjudicated dependent, a disposition order was entered, parents were informed of their rights, and they substantially failed to comply with the performance agreement and permanent placement plan. The caseworker's hearsay testimony was admissible as business records under Florida Statutes section 90.803(6)(a).
[1] A trial court may terminate parental rights upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence that statutory prerequisites have been met, including the adjudication of depe…
[2] Parents' failure to comply with a performance agreement and permanent placement plan, including refusal of services and non-cooperation with placements, can support termi…
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“The record supports that all of the prerequisites for termination contained in subsections 39.467(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1991) were met.”
Establishes the legal standard for termination of parental rights and that the trial court satisfied all statutory requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe three children had been adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care under a performance agreement and permanent placement plan. The parents fa…
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
PARKER, Judge.
W.S. and C.S. (the parents) appeal the trial court’s order terminating their parental rights to their three children. We affirm.
The record supports that all of the prerequisites for termination contained in subsections 39.467(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1991) were met. The guardian ad litem showed by clear and convincing evidence that the children had been adjudicated dependent, a dependency disposition order was entered, the parents were informed of their rights to counsel, and the parents failed to comply substantially with the terms of the third performance agreement and permanent placement plan. The parents failed to take advantage of the services provided for reasons other than financial. They failed to cooperate with placements and referrals made by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and the Family Protection Team. They refused to take L.S., their child who was less than one year of age, to Tampa General Hospital for examination and treatment after L.S.’s doctor instructed them to do so.
Two experts, a licensed mental health counselor and a licensed doctor of psychology, testified that it would be detrimental to the children’s emotional and physical well-being to place them with the parents. The experts testified that the children were developmental delayed due to the parents’ inadequate care and nurturing. The evidence reflects that the children have made good progress while in their foster home and that the children regress with every parental visitation. See Caso v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Serv., 569 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990) (court took into consideration improvement in child when removed from mother).
The parents’ argument that the testimony of Margaret Fuhr, the caseworker for HRS, was inadmissible hearsay is without merit. Fuhr was the custodian of the records. The case reports in the records were filed by caseworkers assigned to the parents’ case who had personal knowledge of the parents’ home situation. Accordingly, her testimony was admissible under section 90.-803(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Caso v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 569 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)