H.D., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 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 Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a termination of parental rights order, finding that the Department of Children and Family Services failed to present competent substantial evidence that it made meaningful efforts to assist the mother in completing her case plan tasks. The court held that under Florida law, termination cannot be based on failure to comply with a case plan when the Department has not made diligent efforts to assist the parent.
Termination of parental rights based on failure to comply with a case plan is improper when the Department has failed to make diligent efforts to assist the parent in meeting the goals of the case plan. The court reversed the termination order because the Department did not present competent substantial evidence of meaningful assistance offered to help the appellant accomplish the assigned tasks.
[1] Termination of parental rights is improper when the Department of Children and Family Services fails to make diligent efforts to assist the parent in meeting the goals of…
[2] A parent's failure to substantially comply with a case plan cannot be treated as evidence of continuing abuse, neglect, or abandonment for purposes of termination of pare…
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“failure substantially to comply with one's case plan may not be treated as evidence of continuing abuse, neglect or abandonment for purposes of termination of parental rights if such failure is attributable to the Department not making a reasonable effort to reunify the parent and children”
Establishes the statutory requirement that Department effort is a prerequisite to using case plan non-compliance as grounds for termination
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceH.D.'s parental rights were terminated based on her failure to substantially comply with her case plan within twelve months after her two children wer…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a final order terminating her parental rights as to her two children based on the determination that she “ha[d] failed to substantially comply with [her] case plan within twelve (12) months after the children were adjudicated dependent and placed in shelter care.... ” She contends that the order must be reversed because the Department of Children and Family Services did not present competent substantial evidence that it took meaningful steps to assist her in completing the tasks set out in her case plan. We agree.
Section 39.806(l)(e)l, Florida Statutes, states that failure substantially to comply with one’s case plan may not be treated as evidence of continuing abuse, neglect or abandonment for purposes of termination of parental rights if such failure is attributable to the Department not making a reasonable effort to reunify the parent and children. § 39.806(1)(e)1, Fla. Stat. (2007). See In the Interest of G.R.S., 647 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (citing Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Sens., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991) and In the Interest of M.R.L., 608 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). As was true in G.R.S., so here the record demonstrates that the Department’s efforts to reunify appellant with her children by assisting her in the completion of the tasks assigned in her case plan were at the beginning half-heart-ed at best, and later nearly non-existent. Termination for failure substantially to comply with a case plan “is improper when the Department has failed to make diligent efforts to assist the parent in meeting the goals of the case plan.... ” T.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Sens., 979 So. 2d 1075, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citations omitted). Here, even without any meaningful help from the Department, appellant was able to accomplish a number of the assigned tasks.
Because the Department did not present competent substantial evidence demonstrating that it had offered any meaningful assistance designed to help appellant accomplish the tasks set out in her case plan, we reverse. As in T.H., on remand, we direct that appellant be afforded a reasonable time within which to complete the tasks set out in her case plan, with meaningful assistance from the Department.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- In the Interest of T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Melinda Barnes, 979 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- In re The Interest of G.R.S. v. State, 647 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- State v. Siernes, 608 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Torry Hollins v. State, 608 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)