IN THE INTEREST OF F.A.C. AND G.E.C., CHILDREN, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
M.H., 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 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court's denial of its petition to terminate parental rights based solely on the mother's failure to comply with a performance agreement. The court affirmed, holding that statutory provisions require clear and convincing evidence of both abuse, neglect, or abandonment and failure to comply with an agreement, and that failure to comply alone is insufficient grounds for termination.
The court held that termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of both an element of section 39.464 (abuse, neglect, or abandonment) and failure to comply with an applicable plan or agreement. Failure to comply with a performance agreement standing alone is not a sufficient basis for termination, as the statute lacks a clear legislative mandate to that effect.
[1] Failure to substantially comply with a performance agreement or permanent placement plan, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for termination of parental rights abs…
[2] Statutory provisions governing termination of parental rights require clear and convincing evidence of both an element of abuse, neglect, or abandonment and the parent's…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 statute now provides that the failure to substantially comply with an agreement or plan will constitute evidence of abuse, neglect or abandonment... Nevertheless, that failure is only to be evidence; the statute lacks a clear legislative mandate that failure in this one obligation alone should result in termination of rights.”
Establishes that while non-compliance is evidence of abuse/neglect, it is not alone sufficient for termination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS sought to terminate the parental rights of M.H., the mother of children F.A.C. and G.E.C. HRS alleged and proved only that the mother failed to co…
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 Performance Agreement Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) appeals from an order denying its petition to terminate parental rights and asserts the trial court erred in relying on In re J.A.T., 590 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We disagree and affirm.
In this termination of parental rights proceeding, HRS alleged and proved only that the mother failed to comply with the performance agreement. The trial court denied the HRS petition. In J.A.T., this court held that failure to comply with a performance agreement, without more, did not justify termination. HRS contends J.A.T. was improperly decided because In re R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986), relied upon by this court, was inapplicable as the result of statutory changes in chapter 39. The supreme court in R.W. held unconstitutional section 39.-41(1)(f)l.d, Florida Statutes (1983), which allowed termination of parental rights for failure to comply with a performance agreement. The basis of the ruling was the statute’s failure to provide standards or guidelines for performance agreements.
We agree with the HRS position that the present version of chapter 39, as amended before J.A.T., cures the constitutional infirmities. However, we disagree with the HRS contention that the amended statute clearly and unambiguously supports its position. Granted, the statute now provides that the failure to substantially comply with an agreement or plan will constitute evidence of abuse, neglect or abandonment. Section 39.464(5), Fla.Stat. (1991). Nevertheless, that failure is only to be evidence; the statute lacks a clear legislative mandate that failure in this one obligation alone should result in termination of rights.
An analysis of the requirements to terminate parental rights must also look to the provisions of section 39.467. Section 39.-467(3) requires a determination by the trial court that each of its five subsections are proven by clear and convincing evidence. Subsection 39.467(3)(b)(2) requires proof that “any of the elements of s. 39.464 is met,” unless persons served fail to respond. Subsection 39.467(3)(e) requires proof that a “parent who is offered a performance agreement or permanent placement plan has failed to substantially comply.” We hold that these provisions require clear and convincing evidence of both any element of section 39.464 and failure to comply with an applicable plan or agreement.
Chapter 39 is not well written. It is no wonder that litigants and trial judges alike are confused in attempting to determine the requirements to terminate parental rights. We admit to some degree of confusion, but are able to determine that chapter 39 fails to furnish a clear, unambiguous statement that failure to comply with a permanent placement plan or a performance agreement, standing alone, is a sufficient basis for termination of parental rights.
A proceeding as important as the termination of the parent/ehild relationship should not be subject to ambiguity. This is especially true because the legislature could, if that is its intent, provide a clear, simple statement in chapter 39 that termination of parental rights is authorized upon a. court finding that parents have failed to substantially comply with a performance agreement or permanent placement plan. Because the legislature has not provided that clear mandate, we affirm the court’s denial of the petition for termination of parental rights.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hroncich v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 667 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…in a timely manner. Hroncieh argues that, in any event, termination may not rest solely on the failure to substantially comply with a compliance agreement. See In the Interest of R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986); In the Interest of F.AC. and G.E.C., 625 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 623 (Fla.1994). Further, the evidence indicates that Hron-cich did not initially comply with the performance agreement, at least in part, due to her mental condition. As discussed earlier, her mental illn…
-
In the Interest of S.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 22 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…r 39 does not allow for the termination of parental rights simply for failing to comply with a case plan.” J.R.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 787 So. 2d 875, 878 n. 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. M.H., 625 So. 2d 909, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Finally, the trial court determined that termination under section 39.806(l)(c) and (e) was the least restrictive means of protecting the children from serious harm. The least restrictive means test requires that “measures…
-
In the Interest of Z.J.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 787 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…hever came first. .As we have previously stated, chapter 39 does not allow for the termination of parental rights simply for failing to comply with a case plan. See State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. M.H. (In the Interest of F.A.C.), 625 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Howard v. Department of Health & Human Servs. (In re L.H.), 647 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). This remains true under the current statutory scheme. . The Department argued that J.R. and V.R. lacked standing to appeal the order…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of R.W. v. Pollock, 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1986)
- In the Interest of J.A.T. v. State, 590 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)