K.E. AND K.E., PARENTS OF K.E. AND C.E., CHILDREN, APPELLANTS,
v.
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.
Parents appealed the termination of their parental rights to two children. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination, holding that the evidence supported findings that reunification posed substantial risk of significant harm to the children, and that the parents failed to substantially comply with their performance plans.
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights for both parents. The mother's completion of drug treatment and employment history could not overcome her past neglect of the children. The father's failure to protect the children from their drug-abusing mother and his inability to maintain permanent housing or provide financial support constituted grounds for termination.
[1] Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect, or abandonment, not merely parental deficiency.
[2] A parent's mental or emotional deficiency justifies termination of parental rights only if it causes abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Only if reunification with a parent poses a substantial risk of significant harm to the child may a parent's rights be permanently severed.”
Establishes the legal standard for termination of 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 intelligenceThe mother struggled with drug addiction and relapsed during the pendency of the case. The father was aware of the mother's drug relapse but denied or…
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 Permanent Placement Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
K.E. (mother) and K.E. (father) belatedly appeal the termination of their parental rights to two of their children. We affirm.
Termination proceedings involve fundamental liberty interests and rights which are protected by .the federal constitution and the Florida constitution. San tosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Padgett v. Dep’t of HRS, 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991). To justify termination of parental rights, the state must show by clear and convincing evidence that the parents abused, neglected or abandoned the child. Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 571. Such a requirement may not be met by showing that the parent is mentally or emotionally deficient or lacks parenting skills. In the Interest of T.D., 537 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Rather, it must be shown that the mental or emotional deficiency of the parent causes abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Id. Only if reunification with a parent poses a substantial risk of significant harm to the child may a parent’s rights be permanently severed. Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 571.
Further,
any decision to terminate parental rights must be based on a finding that the following elements have been proved by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child was adjudicated dependent; (2) a disposition order previously was entered; (3) the parent was informed of his or her right to counsel; (4) a performance agreement or permanent placement plan was offered to the parent; and (5) the parent failed to substantially comply with the plan.
S.Q. v. Dep’t of H.R.S., 687 So. 2d 319, 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citing § 39.467(3), Fla. Stat. (1993); In the Interest of R.J., 586 So. 2d 496, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); In the Interest of R., Children, 591 So. 2d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)).
The mother does not specifically argue on appeal that the state faded to prove any of those elements. Rather, she argues that she deserves another chance because she has successfully completed drug treatment, she has held down a job, and she is close to the children. In response, the DCF suggests that the trial court should be affirmed on this point because termination was in the manifest best interests of the children. We agree with the DCF. See M.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 739 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“her good intentions for the future do not overcome her past neglect of her children ... ”); see also Williams v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 648 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“a parent’s drug addiction is evidence of prospective neglect”); In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So. 2d 1250, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (“[o]ur sympathy for the mother cannot blind us to the overriding concern for the welfare of the child”).
Likewise, we agree with the decision to terminate the father’s parental rights. As the trial court noted in its termination order:
During the pendency of this case, the father ... was aware of the mother’s drug relapse and denied or chose to ignore the risks to the children. The father still does not maintain any permanent housing and neither parent has ... paid child support while these children have been in out-of-home care.
The father repeatedly asked DCF employees to remove the children from his care because he could not care for them. He repeatedly put his children in harm’s way rather than protect the children from their drug-abusing mother. Re-unifying these children with their father would pose a substantial risk of significant harm to them. See Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 571.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 835 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…be abused, neglected, or abandoned by the parents. Appellant failed to aver on appeal that this determination was incorrect. Instead, appellant argued that she was attempting to comply with her case plan. See K.E. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 816 So. 2d 838, 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming termination order because the mother failed to specifically argue that the State failed to prove that she had not substantially complied with her case plan and instead argued that she deserved another chance). The…
-
T. P. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 860 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…g interest in protecting all its citizens — especially its youth. — -against the clear threat of abuse, neglect and death. 577 So. 2d at 570. Application of this principle is exemplified by our decision in K.E. v. Department of Children & Families, 816 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In K.E., the mother’s parental rights were terminated. This court, after noting that she did not argue that sufficient grounds had not been established for termination, stated: Rather, she argues that she deserves another chanc…
-
W.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 919 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…here was no less restrictive alternative to terminating his parental rights). We reject W.N.’s argument that he should be given essentially unlimited chances to attend drug treatment, then relapse into drug use. K.E. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 816 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (rejecting the mother’s argument that she deserves another chance because she has successfully completed drug treatment, held down a job, and is close to the children, where termination was in the manifest best interests of the c…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982)
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- In the Interest of J. L. P., 416 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of T.D., 537 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Williams v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 648 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- In the Interest of R., 591 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of R.J., 586 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- S.Q. v. The Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 687 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Gray v. State, 739 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- M.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 739 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)