T.H., MOTHER OF S.K.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.
Florida appellate court reversed termination of parental rights where evidence was insufficient to establish egregiousness, threat to child's well-being without services, or that termination was the least restrictive means, while affirming the dependency adjudication.
Termination of parental rights must be reversed when evidence fails to establish egregiousness, continuing parental involvement threatens the child's well-being irrespective of services, or that termination is the least restrictive means to protect the child.
[1] Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of egregiousness, that parental involvement threatens the child's well-being irrespective of service…
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“she can benefit from psychotherapy”
Psychologist's testimony regarding the child's potential for improvement through services, supporting reversal of termination.
A mother's parental rights to her child were terminated by the trial court. The Department of Children and Families argued the termination was warrant…
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 Child Welfare cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the order terminating her parental rights to S.K.B. Appellee properly and commendably concedes that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of egregiousness as required by section 39.806(l)(f), Florida Statutes (2012). The evidence was also insufficient to support a finding that the continuing involvement of Appellant in the parent-child relationship threatened the life, safety, well-being, or physical, mental or emotional health of the child, irrespective of the provision of services, where no case plan had been offered and the psychologist testified that “she can benefit from psychotherapy.” See J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 107 So.3d 1196, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing termination of parental rights based on past difficulties in maintaining stable housing despite parents’ current stable housing status and landlord’s testimony that he would work with parents if rent payments were delayed). Finally, the evidence failed to support a finding that termination was the least restrictive means to protect the child. Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991). Accordingly, we reverse the order that terminates Appellant’s parental rights.
The challenged order adjudicated the child dependent and terminated Appellant’s parental rights. We affirm the adjudication of dependency, as that was not challenged.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- D'Amico v. Ferrara, 107 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- J.B. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 107 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)