IN THE INTEREST OF R.H. AND T.H., CHILDREN. A.H., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children. The appellate court reversed, finding the Department of Children and Families failed to prove a material breach of the reunification case plan and that the mother lacked a reasonable opportunity to comply due to her incarceration and the Department's failure to provide referrals during that period.
The court concluded the Department did not prove a material breach of the case plan and that the mother did not have a reasonable opportunity to comply. A parent must have substantial ability to comply with a case plan before parental rights can be terminated based on non-compliance.
[1] A petitioner must prove a material breach of a reunification case plan by clear and convincing evidence when a petition for termination of parental rights is filed prior…
[2] A parent must have the substantial ability to comply with a case plan or performance agreement for termination of parental rights based on non-compliance to be valid.
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“Where a court is terminating parental rights based on a parent's failure to comply with a case plan or a performance agreement, it is axiomatic that the parent must have the substantial ability to comply with the plan or agreement.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that a parent must have reasonable capacity to comply with a case plan before termination can be based on non-compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment declared the children dependent and approved a case plan in April 1997. The mother made minimal efforts to comply with the plan until…
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 Material Breach Of Case Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
A.H. appeals the final judgment terminating -her parental rights to her two children.
The trial court entered a final judgment on April 24, 1997, declaring the children dependent and accepting and approving the case plan prepared by the Florida Department of Children and Families. The mother made minimal efforts to comply with the case plan until she was incarcerated in the county jail on June 19, 1997. The only information we can determine from the record relating to the incarceration is that the mother was sentenced to county jail. Accordingly, the incarceration ground for termination cannot be satisfied in this case. See § 39.464(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997). The Department made no referrals for the mother during the period of incarceration. The Department candidly conceded the following in its closing argument: “I think the evidence today was clear that although maybe the counselors, the Department, didn’t do the best job they could have done in keeping contact with mother, providing referrals in this case.... ”
Where, as here, a case plan with the goal of reunification was entered into and a petition for termination of parental rights is filed prior to the time agreed for performance of the plan, the petitioner must prove a material breach of the plan by clear and convincing evidence. See § 39.4611(5), Fla. Stat. (1997).1 We conclude the Department did not prove a material breach. Further, the mother did not have a reasonable opportunity to comply with the case plan. This ease is similar to In the Interest of E.L.H., Jr., 687 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), in which this court stated: “Where a court is terminating parental rights based on a parent’s failure to comply with a case plan or a performance agreement, it is axiomatic that the parent must have the substantial ability to comply with the plan or agreement.”
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the Department prepare a new case plan within thirty days. Based upon existing circumstances, the Department shall determine whether the new case plan is one for reunification or termination.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur. . We view this statute as also allowing the Department to move to terminate parental rights prior to the time for performance of the plan, if factual circumstances not present at the time of the case plan warrant termination.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Melinda Barnes, 979 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…d to make diligent efforts to assist the parent in meeting the goals of the case plan offered. C.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. (In re AD.C.), 854 So. 2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); A.H. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families (In re R.H.), 726 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); K.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 906 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). For example, in C.C., the record showed that the Department was aware that the father was incarcerated, and it mailed a copy of his case…
-
T.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 905 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…tantially comply with his case plan while in prison. Courts have refused to terminate an incarcerated parent’s rights for noncompliance with a case plan when the Department has failed to assist that parent in complying with the plan. See In re R.H., 726 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); C.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 854 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We ruled similarly in T.C.S. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 647 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), where a father was incarcerated.…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. S.H., 750 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See In re R.H., 726 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). W. SHARP, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of E.L.H., Jr. v. State, 687 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)