S.M., FATHER OF T.H., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND T.H., A CHILD, 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.
Father appeals the termination of his parental rights to Child, whom he has been unable to care for due to continuous institutionalization since 2003 following an insanity acquittal on a homicide charge. The trial court terminated his parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, and the appellate court affirmed but remanded to strike one statutory basis that was not properly alleged against Father.
The court affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights on the multiple statutory grounds properly found by the trial court, but remanded for entry of an amended final judgment striking the reference to termination under section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes, because the petition for termination of parental rights alleged only the mother's failure to comply with that statutory provision, not Father's.
[1] A trial court may terminate parental rights when a child has been adjudicated dependent and the parent is institutionalized and deemed incapable of caring for the child.
[2] A parent's ongoing institutionalization and refusal to take prescribed medication can support a finding that the parent is unable to provide a safe and stable home for a…
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“Early in 2003, Father was involuntarily committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on a homicide charge. Father has been continuously institutionalized since then except for a brief period of conditional release that was terminated in 2006.”
Establishes the factual basis for Father's inability to care for Child and the continuous nature of his institutionalization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFather was involuntarily committed in early 2003 after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on a homicide charge and has remained institutiona…
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
S.M. (“Father”) appeals the trial court’s final judgment for involuntary termination of his parental rights to T.H. (“Child”). Child was born on July 8, 2001. Early in 2003, Father was involuntarily committed after being found not guilty by reason of insanity on a homicide charge. Father has been continuously institutionalized since then except for a brief period of conditional release that was terminated in 2006.
Child was first sheltered in 2004 and then re-sheltered multiple times beginning in 2011. The trial court entered an adjudication of dependency in April of 2011. At that time, the trial court found that Father stipulated to being incapable, due to his institutionalization, of caring for Child. Since then, Child has moved through various foster care and familial placements. Several of these placements have been terminated by the caregivers due to Child’s behavior. As of the time of a social study report filed late in 2015 — four years after the initial dependency — Child had finally begun monthly supervised visits with Father at the state hospital. This consists of one to two hours of monthly contact and occasional written correspondence.
The mother, after proper notice, failed to attend the trial on termination of parental rights.1 The testimony at trial indicated that Father needed ongoing hospitalization as well as medication, which he .refused to lake. The testimony further indicated that Father would not be considered for release due to his record of aggression and a determination that he was a threat to himself and others, possibly including children.2 Father was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder-bipolar type and paranoia, and was deemed uncontrollably unstable, even in the hospital setting.3
Child’s proposed adoptive caretaker testified that Child had been at her home on prior occasions, was staying with her family at the time of trial, fit in well with them, and got along great with her children. She was aware of his history,, his needs, *983and the difficulties he had with prior placements, and she testified that these things would not prevent her from adopting Child.
The trial court granted the Department of Children and Families’ petition for termination of parental rights. There were multiple statutory grounds properly found, by the trial court as a basis for termination of Father’s parental rights. We affirm the final court’s findings and ruling, with the exception of the trial court’s termination of Father’s parental rights pursuant to section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes (2015). That subsection provides for termination when a case plan has been filed and: (1) “the child continues to be abused, neglected, or abandoned”; (2) the “parents have materially breached the plan”; or (3) “the parents have not substantially complied with the case plan so as to permit reunification.” § 39.806(l)(e), Fla. Stat. The petition for termination of parental rights alleged only the mother’s failure to comply with this statutory provision. Accordingly, we affirm the termination of parental rights; we remand, however, for entry of an amended final judgment striking the reference to termination of Father’s parental rights under section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED for entry of amended final judgment.
TORPY, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.