IN THE INTEREST OF B.L.B. AND J.D.H., 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.
An order terminating parental rights cannot be based solely on a parent's failure to comply with a performance agreement; specific findings of abuse, abandonment, or neglect are required.
The trial court terminated a mother's parental rights based on her failure to comply with a performance agreement. The court reviewed evidence of abus…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on appeal of the trial court’s order terminating the parental rights of appellant as to her two children. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In the order granting the petition to terminate parental rights, the trial court reviewed the evidence presented at hearing and determined that appellant failed to substantially comply with her performance agreement. We find no error in this regard and affirm the trial court’s order as to this issue.
However, after determining noncompliance with the performance agreement, the trial court ordered appellant’s parental rights terminated without making any specific finding that the children had been either abused, abandoned, or neglected.
The law is that an order permanently terminating parental rights cannot be based solely on the court’s finding that a parent failed to comply with the terms of a performance agreement. In the Interest of R.W., 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1986); In the Interest of D.J.S., 563 So .2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), citing In the Interest of J.L.C., 501 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
In the instant case, the State adduced evidence tending to establish abuse, abandonment, and neglect, but the trial court, while specifically reciting this evidence, failed to expressly find that one or more of the factors required by section 39.467(3) had been established. The termination of parental rights seems based entirely on the failure to comply with the performance agreement. Therefore, we must remand to the trial court for further findings.
ERVIN, BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arizona L. Sumlar v. Sumlar, 827 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…CA 1996) (holding that trial court abused its discretion by failing to award child support retroactively, where record demonstrated child’s need, and former husband’s ability to pay existed when dissolution petition was filed); Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The child support guidelines presumptively establish the amount to be ordered as child support in an initial proceeding for such support. § 61.80(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000); Swanston v. Swanston, 746 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999…
-
Tish Bardin v. State, 720 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…t the petition for dissolution was filed. The Beal court explained that “the child’s needs and the [fa-therms ability to pay existed at the time of the filing of the petition for dissolution.” Beal, 666 So. 2d at 1054. See also Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that “the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the increased child support retroactive to the date of the petition for modification, because the child’s increased need for support and the former husba…1 / 2
-
Brock v. Voncile Brock, 695 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ingly, that part of the modified final judgment which awards retroactive child support from November 1994 is reversed and remanded for entry of an award of retroactive child support to the date of the petition for modification. Campbell v. Campbell, 635 So. 2d 44, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). With respect to the appropriate methodology to use in calculating the parties’ respective support obligations, we adopt the approach employed in Winters v. Katseralis, 623 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), explained in Gingola…
Previewing 3 of 8 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 D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of J.L.C., 501 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)