K.B., MOTHER OF R.A.D., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed termination of parental rights where the trial court found placement with maternal great-grandmother was inappropriate and termination was in the child's manifest best interest under the least restrictive means test.
Termination of parental rights is appropriate when the trial court finds that placement with a relative would not permit safe re-establishment of the parent-child bond and termination is in the child's manifest best interest.
[1] The least restrictive means test in parental termination cases requires only that measures short of termination be utilized if such measures would permit safe re-establis…
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“the 'least restrictive means' test set out in Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991) is not intended to preserve the parental bonds at the cost of a child's future”
Court explaining the proper scope of the least restrictive means test in parental termination cases
K.B., mother of a two-year-old child R.A.D., had her parental rights terminated by the trial court. The mother conceded at least one statutory ground …
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 Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
K.B., the mother of R.A.D., a two-year-old child, appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights. While the mother concedes the existence of at least one ground for termination of parental rights under section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2002), she contends that the Department of Children and Families (DCF) failed to prove that termination was in the manifest best interest of the child and was the least restrictive means of preventing harm to the child because R.A.D. could have been placed with her maternal great-grandmother. We affirm.
The trial court’s conclusion that placement with the maternal great-grandmother was inappropriate is supported by competent, substantial evidence. We observe, as we have before, that the “least restrictive means” test set out in Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991) is not intended to preserve the parental bonds at the cost of a child’s future. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So. 2d 1000, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The “least restrictive means” test simply requires that measures short of termination be utilized if such measures would permit the safe re-establishment of the parent-child bond. The trial judge found that not to be the case here, and that conclusion is supported by the evidence.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. Father of N.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 931 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. K.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 834 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (observing that “the ‘least restrictive means’ test set out in Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991), is not intended to preserve the parental bonds at the cost of a chil…
-
D.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 940 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 931 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); K.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 834 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (observing “the ‘least restrictive means’ test ... is not intended to preserve the parental bonds at the cost of a child’s future.... The ‘least restrictive means’ test simply requires that measures short of termination be u…
-
F.L.C. v. G.C. and N.C., 24 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ures short of termination be utilized if such measures would permit the safe re-establishment of the parent/child bond. Id.; see also M.M. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 931 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); K.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 834 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Here, the trial court specifically found that the father did not have a meaningful father/child bond with either of his two sons. Where there is little or no bond to protect and there was never a parent/child relationship t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. B.B. and T.B., 824 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)