K.A., 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 to the Florida Supreme Court constitutional questions regarding whether sections 39.806(1)(f) and 39.806(1)(l) of Florida Statutes unconstitutionally eliminate the state's burden to prove substantial risk of harm and least restrictive means when terminating parental rights.
[1] Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence that reunification poses a substantial risk of harm to the child.
[2] A parent's past conduct, such as committing manslaughter of another child, does not automatically justify termination of parental rights without a showing of current risk…
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 reasoning for certifying constitutional questions to the Florida Supreme Court
This is a dependency case where a mother appealed a circuit court decision affecting parental rights. The appeal concerns the constitutionality of two…
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 Facial Constitutionality Of Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
K.A., the Mother,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
and GUARDIAN AD LITEM,
Appellees.
No. 4D21-1514
[January 5, 2022]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Stacey Schulman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2020-1291DP.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of Children and Families.
Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd Weitz, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE PER CURIAM.
We deny Appellant’s motion for rehearing. We grant the motion to certify questions of great public importance. As we noted in V.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 322 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), “[t]he constitutionality of the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, affects fundamental parental interests.” Id. at 1230. We once again certify the following question to the supreme court:
2
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? Moreover, we certify the following question concerning the constitutionality of section 39.806(1)(l), Florida Statutes:
DOES THE 2008 ADDITION OF SUBPARAGRAPH (l) TO SECTION 39.806(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WHEN “ON THREE OR MORE OCCASIONS THE CHILD OR ANOTHER CHILD OF THE PARENT OR PARENTS HAS BEEN PLACED IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE . . . AND THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO THE CHILD’S OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT WERE CAUSED BY THE PARENT OR PARENTS,” UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REMOVE THE STATE’S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE PARENT’S OR PARENTS’ CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TO THE CHILD OR CHILDREN AFFECTED BY THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF PROTECTING THE CHILD OR CHILDREN FROM SERIOUS HARM? CONNER, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- In re the Adoption OF Baby E.A.W. G.W.B. v. J.S.W., 658 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1995)
- Hamilton v. State, 366 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)
- D.M.T. v. T.M.H., 129 So. 3d 320 (Fla. 2013)
- J.E., Sr. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 126 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Barnes v. B.K. Credit Serv., Inc., 461 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- K.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 33 So. 3d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- K.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 332 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami, 243 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2018)
- Norman v. State, 215 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017)