D.B., FATHER OF D.F., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2001-08-17
No. 5D00-3778
SHARP, W., and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
791 So. 2d 1225 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Father D.B. appeals the termination of his parental rights based on his incarceration. The court reversed because the trial court applied a statute that did not take effect until after D.B. was incarcerated, making the statute inapplicable to his case.


Holding

The trial court improperly applied § 39.806(l)(d)1 because that statute only applies to persons incarcerated or sentenced after October 1, 1997, and D.B. was incarcerated in 1995. Therefore, the statute cannot serve as a basis for terminating parental rights in this case.


Headnotes

[1] A statute providing for termination of parental rights based on parental incarceration applies only to persons incarcerated or sentenced after its effective date.

[2] A trial court errs by terminating parental rights based solely on a statute that is inapplicable to the parent's circumstances.

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

Key Quotes

“The sole basis for the trial court's order was section 39.806(l)(d)l, Florida Statutes (2000).”

Identifies the single statutory basis the trial court relied upon for terminating parental rights

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

D.B. pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 13.85 years in prison in April 1995, prior to the birth of his child D.F. The Departm…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, R.B., J.

D.B., the father of D.F., a minor, appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights. Because the trial court applied the wrong law as its sole basis for terminating D.B.’s parental rights, we reverse the final judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Prior to D.F.’s birth, D.B. pled guilty to second degree murder and in April, 1995, was sentenced to 13.85 years in prison. Following a hearing on the Department’s petition, the trial court entered its final judgment terminating D.B.’s parental rights to D.F. The sole basis for the trial court’s order was section 39.806(l)(d)l, Florida Statutes (2000). That statute, in pertinent part, provides that termination of parental rights may be sought “when the parent of a child is incarcerated in a state or federal correctional institution” and “[t]he period of time for which the parent is expected to be incarcerated will constitute a substantial portion of the period of time before the child will attain the age of 18 years.” § 39.806(l)(d)l., Fla. Stat. (2000).

On appeal, D.B. argues, and DCF properly concedes, that this statute is inapplicable to the instant case because the law further provides: “This act shall [take] effect October 1, 1997, and applies to any person incarcerated after October 1, 1997, who is sentenced to a term of incarceration which would qualify under the provisions of this act, as well as to any persons who are sentenced after that date.” Ch. 97-226, § 6, Laws of Fla.1 Because the record demonstrates that D.B. was incarcerated in 1995, it is clear that section 39.806(l)(d)l does not apply and cannot serve as a basis to terminate his parental rights.

On remand, the trial court may consider D.B.’s incarceration along with other factors, such as the nature of his crime, in determining whether D.B.’s rights should be terminated. However, under the law as it existed when D.B. was incarcerated, parental rights could not be terminated based solely on the incarceration of the parent. See W.T.J. v. E.W.R., 721 So. 2d 723, 725 (Fla.1998); In re B.W., 498 So. 2d 946, 948 (Fla.1986); M.S. v. D.C., 763 So. 2d 1051, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). There must be something more. M.S. at 1054.

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment terminating D.B.’s parental’s rights and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SHARP, W., and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . Section 39.806(l)(d), Florida Statutes (2000) was originally numbered section 39.464(l)(d). See § 39.464(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997). The statute applies only to persons incarcerated or sentenced after October 1, 1997. See Ch. 97-226, § 6, Laws of Fla.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …. correctly argues, and the Department con [*273] cedes, that the trial court erred in applying subsection 39.806(l)(d) to this case because J.T. began his incarceration before the statute became effective.3 See D.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 791 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that section 39.806(1)(d) did not apply to a parent who had already started serving his prison sentence prior to the effective date prescribed by statute). Manifest best interest of the child J.T. also challenges the t…
  • R.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 820 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
    …” That argument is not valid in this case because the statutory provision is applicable only to persons who are sentenced to a period of incarceration after October 1, 1997. Ch. 97-226, § 6, Laws of Fla. E.g., D.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 791 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); M.S. v. D.C., 763 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The mother was sentenced prior to that time. Because the Department relied solely upon the inapplicable provision in the termination hearing as well as in its argument on appeal…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw