IN THE INTEREST OF R.R., A CHILD. I.R., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLEES
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.
Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son. Because the appellate court reversed the father's termination in a related case and the Department failed to establish grounds for single-parent termination under Florida law, the court must also reverse the mother's termination.
The court reversed the termination of the mother's parental rights and remanded for further proceedings. Because the reversal of the father's termination eliminated the two-parent termination scenario, single-parent termination requirements apply, and the Department did not establish the required statutory grounds.
[1] When the evidence is insufficient to support the termination of one parent's parental rights, the termination order as to that parent must be reversed.
[2] Reversal of the termination of one parent's rights may necessitate reversal of the termination of the other parent's rights if the grounds for termination of the second p…
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“Section 39.811(6) requires a trial court to consider additional factors when terminating one parent's rights without terminating the rights of the other parent. This section lists the "only" circumstances under which termination of one parent's rights is permissible.”
Establishes that single-parent termination is restricted to specific statutory circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoth parents' parental rights were terminated in a single proceeding. The mother's termination was based solely on her failure to complete her case pl…
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 Grounds For Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
I.R., the Mother, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son, R.R. As the Department properly concedes, because we have reversed the termination of the Father’s parental rights, see W.P.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 17 So.3d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and because the Department did not establish grounds for a single parent termination, we must reverse the termination order as to the Mother as well.
Unique problems arise when both parents’ parental rights are terminated in a single proceeding and the appellate court subsequently determines that the termination of one parent’s rights was improper.
Section 39.811(6) requires a trial court to consider additional factors when terminating one parent’s rights without terminating the rights of the other parent. This section lists the “only” circumstances under which termination of one parent’s rights is permissible. See L.N. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. (In re E.D.), 884 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).FN3 This section creates complexities when an appellate court reviews a judgment terminating the parental rights of both parents and concludes that it must reverse the judgment as to one of the parents. The reversal suddenly subjects the termination of the second parent’s rights to special requirements that were not material at the time the trial court made its ruling.
*28 J.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 908 So.2d 568, 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (one footnote omitted; emphasis added).
Here, the order terminating the Mother’s parental rights reflects that her rights were terminated solely based on her failure to complete her case plan under section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2008). This is not a ground specified in section 39.811(6)(e), and the Department did not put on evidence to establish any other ground for termination under section 39.811(6)(a) through (d). Accordingly, in light of our reversal of the order terminating the Father’s parental rights, we must also reverse the termination order as to the Mother and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of E.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 33 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…the grounds specified in section 39.811(6)(e). Thus I would also reverse the termination of the Mother’s parental rights because the Department did not establish grounds for a single-parent termination. See I.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So. 3d 26, 27-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). V. CONCLUSION The disheartening facts revealed in the record of this case could certainly lead one to conclude that E.C. would be “better off” if she were adopted by her current foster parents. But “[t]he fact that a chi…
-
A.M.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 222 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…th parents’ parental rights are terminated in a single proceeding and the appellate court subsequently determines that the termination of one parent’s rights was improper.” In the Interest of R.R., a child, I.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 18 So. 3d 26, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). When terminating one parent’s rights without terminating the rights of the other parent, section 39.811(6), Florida Statutes (2016), requires consideration of additional factors by the trial court. When reversing a judg [*123…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of E.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 884 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- In the Interest of L.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 908 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- In the Interest of R.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 17 So. 3d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)