IN THE INTEREST OF G.R., W.R., AND D.R., CHILDREN. B.B., NATURAL MOTHER, 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.
B.B., a mother with substance abuse issues, appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children. The Florida appellate court reversed the termination, finding the state acted prematurely where the mother was making rehabilitation efforts, the children showed no signs of harm or neglect, and inconsistent treatment existed across counties.
The court reversed the termination, holding that the state acted prematurely in terminating parental rights. The court determined that parental rights can only be intruded upon through the least restrictive means of protecting children from serious harm, and under the facts presented—where the children were well cared for and secure and the mother was making determined rehabilitation efforts—there was no compelling need to terminate parental rights.
[1] Termination of parental rights requires the least restrictive means of protecting a child from serious harm.
[2] A court may not terminate parental rights when the parent is making a determined effort to rehabilitate and the children are well cared for and secure.
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“Those rights can be intruded upon only in the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm.”
Establishes the legal standard governing when parental rights may be terminated—only through the least restrictive means necessary to protect children from serious harm.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dependency petition was filed in November 1997 alleging the mother had substance abuse problems and was neglecting three children (ages 4-8). The ch…
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 Case Plan Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
B.B., the mother, appeals from the final order terminating her parental rights to G.R., age eight, W.R., age five, and D.R., age four. A petition for dependency was filed on November 18, 1997, alleging that the mother had a substance abuse problem and was neglecting her children. The children were placed with their paternal grandmother on November 11, 1997, and later, on May 4, 1999, with their paternal aunt and uncle in Virginia. They remain there at this time. The mother signed an initial case plan on October 1, 1997. An updated plan was filed August 6, 1999, which had a goal of termination of paternal rights and a target date of August 31, 2000. On September 13, 1999, a petition for termination of parental rights was filed, alleging that the mother had materially breached the case plan and had not remained drug and alcohol free. The trial court, relying heavily on the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, granted the petition.
This case differs from many in that there is no evidence of severe neglect of the children. The children do not suffer from any psychological or physical problems which impair their development. The record reflects that while in the mother’s custody, there were no marks or bruises on the children, they appeared to be healthy and happy, there was food in the pantry, and the house was clean. The mother worked as a waitress to provide them with shelter and support. While they have been with their aunt and uncle, she has called and written to them many times.
Admittedly, the mother has not complied fully with her Pinellas County Plan; however, she has not ignored it either. Of significance is that in March 1999 the mother gave birth to P.S., who was placed in foster care in Hillsborough County. She remains in compliance with her Hills-borough County Case Plan, and no effort has been made to terminate her parental rights as to P.S. Thus, the same mother with the same problems is being treated inconsistently in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties. This brings into focus the issue of whether termination of parental rights in this case is appropriate at this time.
The State has a paramount interest in protecting our children from harm. At the same time, we recognize the fundamental rights of parents to have the custody and companionship of their children. Those rights can be intruded upon only in the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm. See Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehab., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991). Applying this standard, we determine that the State acted prematurely in seeking the termination of the mother’s parental rights to these children. The mother is making a determined effort to rehabilitate herself under the Hillsborough County Case Plan and the children are well cared for and secure. There is no compelling need to rush to judgment under these facts.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of C.V.T., Jr. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…om incarceration within a month. If the Mother were able to continue making progress toward recovery, termination would not be the least restrictive means of preventing harm to the child. See B.B. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Families (In re G.R.), 793 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that there was no compelling need to rush to judgment where mother with substance abuse problem was making determined effort to rehabilitate herself); R.W.W., 788 So. 2d 1020 (stating that Department failed to establish t…
-
In the Interest of J.S. and A.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Off., 18 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the children were in a secure and adequate placement. In similar circumstances, we have previously refused to interfere with a parent’s fundamental right to have the custody and companionship of her children. See B.B v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 793 So. 2d 988, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that DCF acted prematurely in seeking termination of parental rights where mother was “making a determined effort to rehabilitate herself’ and children were “well cared for and secure”). We see no need to rush to jud…
-
R.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 30 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…requirements that are lacking here. For these reasons, we reverse the termination order and remand this matter for reinstatement of the most recent case plan, which had a goal of reunification. See B.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families (In re G.R.), 793 So. 2d 988, 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that DCF acted prematurely in seeking termination of parental rights where mother was “making a determined effort to rehabilitate herself’ and children were “well cared for and secure”); see also J.H. v. Dep’t of Chi…
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
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)