E.G., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights over his HIV-positive child who requires intensive antiretroviral medication regimens. The trial court found the father failed to comply with the case plan despite DCF's reasonable efforts to assist him, and that continued parental involvement posed a risk of harm to the child. The appellate court affirmed the termination.
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, holding that the father did not preserve any argument about the sufficiency of the case plan for appellate review, the case plan provided sufficiently specific instructions that the father understood, and competent substantial evidence supported that the child would be at risk of harm by the father's continued involvement.
[1] A party waives an argument regarding the sufficiency of a case plan by raising the issue for the first time on appeal.
[2] A case plan is sufficiently specific when the parent testifies that they understood its requirements.
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 child requires an intensive regimen of HIV antiretroviral medications, some of which must be administered twice daily and carefully measured each time. Failure to administer these medications properly and precisely will be life-threatening to the child.”
Establishes the critical nature of the father's obligation and the life-threatening consequences of non-compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe child is HIV-positive and requires intensive antiretroviral medications administered twice daily with precise measurement. The child's viral load …
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 Material Breach Of Case Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
The father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. The trial court’s twenty-seven-page final order thoroughly recapitulates the facts of this case. The child, who is HIV-positive, was sheltered when her viral load increased drastically because her medications were not being administered properly. The child requires an intensive regimen of HIV an-tiretroviral medications, some of which must be administered twice daily and carefully measured each time. Failure to administer these medications properly and precisely will be life-threatening to the child.
The Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) prepared a case plan with the goal of reunification. The father was required to attend the child’s medical appointments and prove that he was proficient in measuring and administering the child’s medications. DCF attempted to assist the father by providing information about the medications and even went so far as to offer transportation to the various medical appointments. The trial court concluded that the father did not comply with the case plan, which was not due to any failure of reasonable efforts by the father; instead, the court concluded that the father materially breached the case plan.
*946We hold that the father did not preserve for appellate review any argument about the sufficiency of the ease plan DCF prepared for him because the father raises the issue for the first time on appeal. Further, we find that even if the father had preserved this issue for appeal, the case plan provided sufficiently specific instructions to the father, who testified at the final hearing that he understood what it required of him. Additionally, competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the child would be at risk of harm by the father’s continued involvement: the father missed the majority of the child’s medical appointments; he testified that he could not name the medications the child was currently taking nor could he name the child’s physicians; and he had not demonstrated an ability to measure and administer the child’s vital and demanding regimen of medications. Therefore, we affirm.
Affirmed.
WARNER, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 101 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…irm the final judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights to her HIV-positive daughter. In a separate opinion, we affirmed the same order terminating the parental rights of the child’s father. See E.G. v. State, Dep’t of Children and Families, 97 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that competent substantial evidence supported trial court’s conclusion that HIV-positive child would be at risk of harm by father’s continued involvement where the father had not demonstrated an ability to administer the…