R.M., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of parental rights of incarcerated father under section 39.806(1)(d)3, holding that the statute does not require proof of actual detrimental contact but rather evidence that continuing the parental relationship would be harmful to the children.
Section 39.806(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes does not require proof that actual contact with an incarcerated parent is detrimental; evidence that continuing the parental relationship would be harmful suffices.
[1] Section 39.806(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes permits termination of parental rights of an incarcerated parent based on evidence that continuing the parental relationship would…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“continuing the parental relationship would be harmful to the child”
The statutory language of section 39.806(1)(d)3 that permits termination of parental rights of an incarcerated parent.
An incarcerated father's parental rights to two children were terminated. The Department of Children and Families presented testimony from the childre…
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 Child Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
An incarcerated father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children, claiming that the trial court erred in relying on section 39.806(l)(d)3, Florida Statutes (2001), as a ground for termination. That section permits the court to terminate the rights of an incarcerated parent when the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that “continuing the parental relationship would be harmful to the child.” The father contends that the Department of Children and Famüies (“DCF”) faded to prove that actual contact with the father was detrimental to the chüdren. We hold that the statute does not require proof that actual contact is detrimental. DCF relied upon the testimony of the chüdren’s therapists to meet its burden in proving the father’s continuing relationship was detrimental to the children. Each testified to the chüdren’s mental state, their present lack of a relationship with their father, and their need for permanency. They each stressed that the possibility of the father reclaiming his chüdren after his incarceration would be extremely detrimental to the chüdren’s mental health. The daughter’s therapist even stated that reunification several years in the future would “completely destroy” the little girl. The trial court found this evidence compelling. We distinguish In re J.D.C., 819 So. 2d 264, 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), because in that case, DCF apparently offered no evidence regarding the effect continuing the parental relationship would have on the child.
Affirmed.
POLEN, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 874 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ce the mother is the sister’s source of information, it appears that the mother also fails to appreciate the gravity of her deeds and the consequences they have wrought on her young children. DCF points to R.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 847 So. 2d 1103(Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In R.M., this court affirmed the termination of a father’s rights. This court held that the statute does not require proof that actual contact is detrimental. In R.M., “DCF relied upon the testimony of the children’s therapists t…
-
In the Interest of J.W. v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 210 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…carcerated father had no relationship with his child, the trial court erred in finding that continuing the parental relationship would not be contrary to the child’s best interest under section 39,806(l)(d)(3)); R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 847 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that section 39.806(l)(d)(3) does not require proof that actual contact with the incarcerated parent was detrimental to children and evidence that the possibility of the parent reclaiming his children after his inc…
-
S.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 132 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…l to them. In fact, Dr. Bloomfield, DCF’s own witness, testified that severing S.B.’s parental rights would cause the children “pain and mourning” and that they would need therapy to get through the process. Cf. R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 847 So. 2d 1103, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (parental rights terminated where two separate therapists for two children testified that reunification with the father would be “extremely detrimental to the children’s mental health,” and one therapist said it would “ ‘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
- In the Interest of J.D.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 819 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)