V.S., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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 certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court concerning whether the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally permits termination of parental rights regarding siblings without requiring proof of nexus between the egregious conduct and substantial risk of harm to each individual child.
[1] An appellate court cannot reweigh the evidence presented in a termination of parental rights case; it must affirm if competent substantial evidence supports the trial cou…
[2] Proof of a nexus between egregious conduct toward one child and substantial risk of harm to siblings is not required for termination of parental rights under section 39.8…
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 constitutionality of the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, affects fundamental parental interests.”
Court's explanation for why the question merits certification of great public importance
This case involves a constitutional challenge to a 2014 amendment to Florida's parental rights termination statute that eliminated the requirement to …
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 Manifest Best Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion to certify a question of great public importance. The constitutionality of the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, affects fundamental parental interests. Before issuance of our opinion in this case, no court has directly addressed the constitutionality of the statute, although some have questioned it. See In Interest of C.M.H., 288 So. 3d 722, 724 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); J.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 198 So. 3d 706, 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
The supreme court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the district courts which expressly declare a statute constitutional. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(i). The majority decision declares the amendment valid. In addition, we certify the following question to the supreme court:
DOES THE 2014 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 39.806(1)(f),
FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO PROOF
OF NEXUS BETWEEN EGREGIOUS CONDUCT TOWARDS
ONE CHILD IS REQUIRED TO TERMINATE THE PARENTAL
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD'S SIBLINGS, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
REMOVE THE STATE'S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE
EGREGIOUS CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF
HARM TO EACH SIBLING AND IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
MEANS OF PROTECTING THE SIBLING(S) FROM SERIOUS HARM?
CONNER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur. * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (23 total)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982)
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)
- Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1996)
- Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. F.L., 880 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2004)
- Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1987)
- State ex rel. Charles B. Sparks v. Mrs. A. E. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1957)
- Durousseau v. State, 55 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 2010)
- In the Interest of T.M. and F.M., 641 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1994)
- S.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 202 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2016)