B.B., FATHER OF B.B., 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.
B.B. appeals the termination of his parental rights following his failure to substantially comply with a court-approved reunification case plan. The appellate court affirms the termination, holding that the availability of alternative long-term relative placement does not preclude termination when a parent fails to rehabilitate despite offered services.
Termination of parental rights was appropriate. The existence of a long-term relative placement does not preclude termination when the parent has failed to substantially comply with a case plan despite good faith DCF efforts and services, and termination is found to be in the child's manifest best interests.
[1] A court has jurisdiction over a dependency proceeding when a child is taken into the custody of the Department of Children and Families, even if the child and family have…
[2] A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if a child is present in the state and is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
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 least restrictive means test requires DCF to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family through a case plan before terminating a parent's rights.”
Establishes the legal standard for terminating parental rights and the prerequisite efforts required
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDCF sheltered a ten-month-old child based on a malnutrition report. B.B. consented to the child's dependency, and the trial court adjudicated the chil…
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
B.B. challenges the trial court’s final judgment terminating his parental rights.1 We affirm.
After the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) sheltered the ten-month-old based on a report of malnutrition, B.B. consented to the child’s dependency. The trial court adjudicated the child dependent, placed him with grandparents, and approved B.B.’s case plan that had a goal of reunification. More than a year passed, and despite DCF’s offer of services, B.B. failed to substantially comply with his case plan. Based on this failure, the trial court granted DCF’s petition to terminate his parental rights pursuant to section 39.806(l)(e), Florida Statutes.
B.B. argues that terminating his parental rights was not the least restrictive means of protecting the child because he could have been placed in a permanent guardianship with the paternal grandparents. However, the fact that a long-term placement with a relative exists does not preclude terminating a parent’s rights. See A.J. v. K.A.O., 951 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The least restrictive means test requires DCF to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate the parent and reunite the family through a case plan before terminating a parent’s rights. See *185 Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991).
In this case, B.B. was offered a ease plan. However, he failed to substantially comply with its terms by failing to follow through with substance abuse treatment, failing to maintain appropriate housing and employment, being convicted of several new law violations during the pendency of the proceeding, and testing positive for drugs. This failure, coupled with the trial court’s finding that termination was in the manifest best interests of the child, is not being challenged on appeal, and furthermore, is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See D.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 932 So.2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Consequently, the trial court did not err when it terminated B.B.’s parental rights. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA, J., and COBB, W., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of C.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 51 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…A.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 812 So. 2d 447, 447-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (noting that the parent’s case plan required him to have no new law violations and to comply with all terms of his probation); B.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 13 So. 3d 183, 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (affirming termination of parental rights where the parent “failed to substantially comply with [the case plan’s] terms by failing to follow through with substance abuse treatment, failing to maintain appropriate housing and…
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- Garnicki v. State, 951 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- D.B. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 932 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)