STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLANTS,
v.
D.A., FATHER OF C.A., A MINOR CHILD, 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 trial court's denial of the Department of Children and Families' petition to terminate parental rights of an incarcerated father, finding the trial court failed to address two statutory grounds for termination (harm from continued parental relationship and abandonment) and that its findings regarding relative placement were inconsistent with concurrent case law.
The trial court erred by failing to specifically address the statutory grounds for termination under section 39.806(1)(d)(3) (harm from continuing parental relationship) and section 39.806(1)(b) (abandonment), for which competent evidence existed. The trial court's finding that the Department inadequately searched for relative placement was inconsistent with its concurrent finding that no suitable relative placement existed in a related sibling case, and relative placement cannot serve as a ground to deny termination when a child has been in a stable placement for six months or more.
[1] A trial court must address all grounds for termination of parental rights alleged by the Department of Children and Families, even if it finds the Department failed to ma…
[2] A trial court's denial of a petition to terminate parental rights based solely on the Department's failure to make reasonable efforts or explore relative placements is re…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 specifically denied the petition for termination based on its findings that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to assist appellee in completing his case plan and failed to explore relatives for placement”
Identifies the trial court's stated reasons for denying the termination petition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Children and Families sought to terminate the parental rights of D.A., an incarcerated father, regarding his minor son C.A. The tria…
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 Petition For Termination Of Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
The Department of Children and Families (Department) appeals from an order denying a petition to terminate the parental rights of D.A., appellee, as to his minor son C.A. The trial court specifically denied the petition for termination based on its findings that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to assist appellee in completing his case plan and failed to explore relatives for placement.
*335We find the trial court erred in failing to address two of the grounds for termination alleged by the Department: (1) that continuing the parental relationship with appellee, who was incarcerated, would be harmful to C.A., as set forth in section 39.806(1)(d)(3), Florida Statutes (2011); and (2) abandonment, as set forth in section 39.806(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). We find there was competent evidence that would have supported a finding of termination as to either of these grounds. Because the trial court specifically denied the petition for termination based on the Department’s failure to assist appellee with his case plan and to find a relative placement, without addressing the grounds related to subsections 39.806(1)(d)(3) and (l)(b), it is unclear that the trial court actually considered these grounds. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address these grounds specifically.
Further, the trial court’s finding that the Department failed to make an adequate search for a relative placement is inconsistent with the court’s finding that there was no suitable relative placement for C.A.’s brother, D.A. In the Interest of D.A., No. 16-2010-DP-388-AXXX (Fla. 4th Cir.Ct. Feb. 8, 2012) (The cases were tried together below, and the same evidence was presented for both children on the issue of relative placement). See also K.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 959 So.2d 401, 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“[T]he possibility of a relative placement is plainly not a reason to delay a decision to terminate parental rights if termination is otherwise in the manifest best interest of the child.”); § 39.810(1), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“If a child has been in a stable or preadoptive placement for not less than 6 months, the availability of ... a placement with a relative, may not be considered as a ground to deny the termination of parental rights.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- K.W. father of S.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 959 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)