IN RE L.H., J.H., D.H., AND S.H., CHILDREN, MARCENIA HOWARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
Marcenia Howard appealed the termination of her parental rights to four children. The Florida appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to enter specific findings of fact regarding abandonment as required by statute, despite the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable in parental termination cases.
Yes. The trial court erred by failing to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law as mandated by Florida Statutes §§ 39.467(7) and 39.468(3). A finding that the mother failed to comply with her performance agreement, by itself, cannot support termination based on abandonment without specific findings addressing the elements of abandonment.
[1] A trial court's written order terminating parental rights must contain specific findings of fact to support its conclusions.
[2] A finding that a parent failed to comply with a performance agreement, without more, is insufficient to support termination of parental rights based on abandonment.
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“Sections 39.467(7) and 39.468(3) of the Florida Statutes mandate that the trial courts enter written orders containing findings of fact and conclusions of law in altermination cases.”
Establishes the statutory requirement at issue in the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarcenia Howard's parental rights to four children were terminated by the trial court. The trial court found that Howard had failed to make any effort…
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 Abandonment Of Child cases and more on FLexlaw
DIAMANTIS, Judge.
Marcenia Howard (the mother) appeals the trial court’s final order terminating her parental rights to her four children. Because we agree with the mother that the trial court erred in failing to set forth specific findings of fact to support its conclusion that the mother had abandoned her children, we must remand the case without addressing the additional contentions raised by the mother.
Sections 39.467(7) and 39.468(3) of the Florida Statutes mandate that the trial courts enter written orders containing findings of fact and conclusions of law in altermination cases. See §§ 39.467(7), 468(3), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also In re R.J., 586 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In the instant case, the trial court’s order merely contains a finding that the mother failed to make any efforts to comply with her performance agreement. By itself, such a finding cannot support termination of the mother’s parental rights based on abandonment. See In re B.T., 597 So. 2d 398, 398-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accord In re R.J., 586 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also In re J.A.T., 590 So. 2d 524, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
The importance of setting forth specific findings of fact regarding abandonment is underscored by the requirement that at trial the state must prove grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. See In re R.W., 495 So. 2d 133, 135 (Fla.1986); Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So. 2d 780, 785-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1994); § 39.467(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).
This requirement of specific findings of fact, coupled with the constitutionally required elevated standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence in termination cases, will further “ ‘impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision and thereby perhaps ... reduce the chances that inappropriate terminations’ will be ordered.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 764-65,102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 427, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979)).
We have recognized the importance of the fact-finding process even in dependency cases where the potential results to the family unit are not as severe as in termination of parental rights proceedings. Consequently, we have consistently enforced section 39.409(3)’s requirement of written findings of fact to support a finding of dependency. See Luszczyk v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 576 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Williams v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 568 So. 2d 995, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sigafoos v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 567 So. 2d 1053, 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s termination order and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED and REMANDED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 812 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ll and accurate fact finding is essential not only on the question whether DCFS has authority to terminate parental rights but also on the question whether it is in the child’s best interests to do so. See § 39.809(5), Fla. Stat. (2000); In re L.H., 647 So. 2d 311, 311-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also In re K.M., 788 So. 2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that when at least one of the grounds for termination of parental rights has been established, the “issue then is whether the Department of Children and…
-
Denson v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 661 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…urt is required to state findings of fact to support the determination of dependency. § 39.409, Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla.RJuv.P. 8.330(g). See also Ash v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 649 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); In re L.H., 647 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Simons v. Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 644 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); D.S. v. Dept, of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 642 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Ware v. J.N.M., 632 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994…
-
K.R.L. v. The Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 83 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ull and accurate fact finding is essential not only on the question whether DCF has authority to terminate parental rights but also on the question whether it is in the child’s best interests to do so. See § 39.809(5), Fla. Stat. (2009); In re L.H., 647 So. 2d 311, 311-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also In re K.M., 788 So. 2d 306, 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (noting that when at least one of the grounds for termination of parental rights has been established, the “issue then is whether the DCF proved by clear and co…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979)
- In the Interest of R.W. v. Pollock, 495 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1986)
- Kingsley v. Kingsley, 623 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Williams v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of R.J., 586 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Souter v. State, 576 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of J.A.T. v. State, 590 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Sigafoos v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 567 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Cmty. Nat'l Bank v. Rishoi, 567 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)