J.H., FATHER OF A.H., A CHILD, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the trial court's decision not to terminate parental rights, holding that the least restrictive means test does not require preserving a parental bond when the parent's criminal propensities prevent a meaningful relationship, but left open the possibility of future termination if the parent receives a significant prison sentence.
Termination of parental rights is not barred by the least restrictive means test where a parent's criminal propensities prevent a meaningful parent-child relationship.
[1] The least restrictive means test in parental termination cases does not require preservation of a parental bond when the parent's criminal propensities prevent a meaningf…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“measures short of termination should be utilized if such measures can permit the safe reestablishment of the parent-child bond”
Explaining the least restrictive means test and its proper application in parental termination cases
J.H. is the father of A.H., a child. The Department of Children and Families sought to terminate J.H.'s parental rights, and J.H. had pending felony c…
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 Parent-Child Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final judgment entered below. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the Department of Children and Families filing a new petition for termination of parental rights should J.H. be convicted and sentenced to prison on his pending felony charges. A significant prison sentence would not only potentially provide new legal grounds for termination,1 it would require the trial court to reexamine the issue of whether termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect the child, A.H. The least restrictive meáns test is not intended to preserve a parental bond at the cost of a child’s future. Rather, it simply requires that “measures short of termination should be utilized if such measures can permit the safe reestablishment of the parent-child bond.” A.J. v. K.A.O., 951 So.2d 30, 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Where there is a lack of a meaningful relationship between a parent and a child, caused in large part by the parent’s criminal propensities, this Court has previously concluded that termination of parental rights is not barred by application of the least restrictive means test. See, e.g., F.L.C. v. G.C., 24 So.3d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); A.J., 951 So.2d at 30.
AFFIRMED.
LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guardian AD Litem Program O/B/O A.E. and L.E. Children v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 207 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…and a child, caused in large part by the parent’s criminal propensities, this Court has previously concluded that termination of parental rights is not barred by application of the least restrictive means test.” J.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 161 So. 3d 499, 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citations omitted). The Fourth District Court affirmed a TPR where a father “was prevented from completing a case plan or from participating more in his child’s life due to his incarceration,” explaining: “Nevertheless, if…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. B.B. and T.B., 824 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Garnicki v. State, 951 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Butler v. State, 24 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)