R.F., MOTHER OF N.T., J.T., J.T. AND J.T., ETC., 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating parental rights, as there was substantial evidence supporting its findings.
The mother's parental rights were terminated. She appealed, arguing that placement with her father and stepmother in Massachusetts was a less restrict…
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 Best Interests Of The Children cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
R.F., the mother of four minor children, appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. Because we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, we affirm.
R.F. does not challenge the grounds for the termination of her parental rights. Rather, she contends that termination was not the least restrictive means of protecting the children, because her father and stepmother, who live in Massachusetts, indicated at the adjudicatory hearing that they were willing to take the children.
Because parental rights implicate fundamental liberty interests, the Department of Children and Families must establish that termination is the least restrictive means available to protect the children from harm. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. L.D., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The least restrictive means requirement dictates that measures short of termination should be used if those measures can permit the safe re-establishment of the parent-child bond. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
The trial judge considered the offer of R.F.’s father and stepmother to care for the children, but found that, despite their good intentions, there was not a “realistic likelihood of a successful placement of the children” with them in the foreseeable future. She concluded, as a result, that R.F’s father and stepmother were not available relatives for immediate placement of the children, and that the best interests of the children required the court to proceed with a permanent placement. As there is substantial, competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we find no error. See N.S.H. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843 So. 2d 898 (Fla.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 950, 124 S.Ct. 388, 157 L.Ed.2d 282 (2003); C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 879 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, CJ., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.A.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 10 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…s test applies in proceedings under chapters 39 and 63 of the Florida Statutes); D.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 930 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); In re K.W., 891 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 889 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Dep’t of Children & Families v. L.D., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). This test requires, as the court in Pad-gett explained, “that [DCF] ordinarily must show that it has made a good faith effort to rehabilitate the pa…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. B.B. and T.B., 824 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. L.D. and J.S., 840 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- N.S.H. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2003)
- Goldblatt v. A&W Indus., Inc., 540 U.S. 950 (U.S. 2003)
- N. S. H. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 540 U.S. 950 (U.S. 2003)
- C.B. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 879 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)