S.L., THE MOTHER, 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.
A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to child S.A., arguing that because the trial court did not terminate her rights to S.A.'s half-siblings, termination could not be the least restrictive means of protection. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that each child must be evaluated individually based on their particular circumstances rather than applying a uniform approach across all children.
The trial court did not err because parental rights to each child must be evaluated individually based on that child's particular circumstances and needs, not uniformly across all siblings. The trial court properly applied the least restrictive means test to S.A. individually.
[1] A trial court must individually determine whether the termination of parental rights to each child is permitted by statute, is the least restrictive means to protect that…
[2] Termination of parental rights is permissible when it is the least restrictive means of protecting a child from harm.
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“the trial court must individually determine whether the termination of parental rights to each child is permitted by the statute, is the least restrictive means to protect that child, and is in that child's manifest best interests.”
Establishes the legal standard that parental rights must be evaluated individually for each child rather than uniformly across siblings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mother had not made progress on her case plan as of final judgment and had not contacted S.A. for over a year while living out of state. S.A.'s bi…
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 Least Restrictive Means cases and more on FLexlaw
In challenging the final judgment terminating her rights, appellant mother claims that the trial court’s finding that termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm, as required by Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 565 (Fla.1991), was not supported by competent substantial evidence. In particular, she claims that because the trial court did not terminate her rights to this child’s half-siblings, termination was not necessary to protect S.A. We disagree, as the trial court appropriately treated each child based upon her individual circumstances.
For support of her position that the trial court could not find that termination was the least restrictive means where her rights to her other children were not terminated, the mother cites to In re G.R., 793 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). There, the court held that termination of the mother’s rights to her older children did not meet the least restrictive means test when the mother had made progress on rehabilitating herself, had frequent contact with the children, and the Department had not sought to terminate her rights to a child born during the dependency of the older children.
The facts of this case are entirely different. The mother had not made any progress on her case plan as of the final judgment; she had not contacted S.A. for over a year; and she was out of state. The Department had not sought to proceed *204with termination of her rights to her older children because they were in a stable environment with their father. That father was also taking care of S.A., who was not his child but the child of a father serving a lengthy prison term. The Department sought to terminate both the father’s and mother’s rights to S.A. in order to provide permanency to the child. The trial court evaluated each child individually with respect to their needs and the least restrictive means test, as the court was required to do. In re K.A., 880 So.2d 705, 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“[T]he trial court must individually determine whether the termination of parental rights to each child is permitted by the statute, is the least restrictive means to protect that child, and is in that child’s manifest best interests.” (emphasis added)). The court committed no error.
We affirm as to all other issues raised.
STEVENSON and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 164 So. 3d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ly determine whether the termination of parental rights to each child is permitted by the statute, is the least restrictive means to protect that child, and is in that child’s manifest best interests.”); accord, S.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 82 So. 3d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The Department filed its petition to terminate D.S.’s parental rights to all three of his children, alleging as grounds for termination his incarceration for a significant [*34] period of the children’s lives. Section 39.8…
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- In the Interest of K.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 880 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- In the Interest of G.R. v. State, 793 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)