V.S., 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 court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the constitutional question of whether section 39.806(1)(f) violates due process by eliminating the requirement to prove nexus between egregious conduct toward one child and substantial risk of harm to siblings before terminating parental rights.
[1] A statute's constitutionality may be certified as a question of great public importance to the supreme court.
[2] The supreme court has discretionary jurisdiction to review district court decisions that expressly declare a statute constitutional.
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.”
Court's reasoning for granting motion to certify question of great public importance
A mother appealed a child protection matter in Broward County involving the termination of parental rights. The case involved the interpretation and a…
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 Nexus Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion to certify a question of great public importance. The constitutionality of the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, affects fundamental parental interests. Before issuance of our opinion in this case, no court has directly addressed the constitutionality of the statute, although some have questioned it. See In Interest of C.M.H., 288 So. 3d 722, 724 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); J.F. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 198 So. 3d 706, 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
The supreme court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the district courts which expressly declare a statute constitutional. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(i). The majority decision declares the amendment valid. In addition, we 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? CONNER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur. * * *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of B.F.(1) v. Dep't of Child. & Families & Guardian ad Litem Program, 198 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)