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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied the appellant mother's motion for rehearing in a dependency/termination of parental rights case and certified two questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether amendments to Florida's termination of parental rights statutes unconstitutionally eliminate the state's burden to prove nexus between egregious conduct and substantial risk of harm to siblings or multiple placements.
The court did not resolve the constitutional questions on the merits but instead certified two questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court for determination: (1) whether the 2014 amendment allowing termination based on egregious conduct toward one sibling without proving nexus to other siblings violates constitutional protections; and (2) whether the 2008 amendment allowing termination based on three or more placements without proving substantial risk of harm and least restrictive means violates constitutional protections.
[1] A court may certify questions of great public importance to the supreme court.
[2] The constitutionality of amendments to statutes affecting parental rights may present questions of great public importance.
Previewing 2 of 4 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.”
Establishes that the court found sufficient constitutional significance to warrant certification to the supreme court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a mother (K.A.) whose parental rights were terminated. The appeal concerns statutory provisions allowing termination based on egregi…
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 Substantial Risk Of Serious Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
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:
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 322 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…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: DOES THE 201…
-
S.M.O. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 357 So. 3d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ny because it promotes the compelling government interest of protecting 7 The Fourth District has certified the constitutionality of § 39.806(1)(f) as a question of great public importance at least four times. See V.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 322 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); R.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 328 So. 3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); K.A. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 332 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); E.A. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 332 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). So far, the Florida…
-
K.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…RING 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 DO…
Authorities Cited
- K.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 322 So. 3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)