P.C., THE FATHER AND L.H., THE MOTHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & 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.
Parents P.C. and L.H. appealed an order terminating their parental rights to three children. The court affirmed termination based on two statutory grounds but reversed termination on a third ground regarding failure to comply with the case plan, finding the record insufficient to support that basis.
The court affirmed termination of parental rights on statutory grounds section 39.806(1)(b) and 39.806(1)(d)(3), but reversed termination on section 39.806(1)(e)(1) for failure to substantially comply with the case plan, finding the record insufficient to support this ground where the father completed available tasks and non-compliance was not possible under the circumstances.
[1] To terminate parental rights based on a parent's failure to substantially comply with a case plan, the tasks comprising the case plan must be ones that compliance with th…
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“To terminate parental rights based on lack of compliance with the case plan, compliance must be possible.”
The court citing precedent from K.J. v. Dep't of Children & Families in explaining the legal standard for case plan compliance grounds for termination.
The Department of Children & Families sought to terminate parental rights of P.C. (father) and L.H. (mother) regarding their three children. The fathe…
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 Substantial Compliance With Case Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. P.C., the father, and L.H., the mother, appeal an order terminating their parental rights as to their three children. We affirm the mother’s appeal without further comment. We also affirm termination of the father’s parental rights on two statutory grounds—section 39.806(1)(b) and 39.806(1)(d)(3)—but reverse termination based on section 39.806(1)(e)(1), failure to substantially comply with the case plan.
The Department concedes the record does not support a finding that the father failed to substantially comply with the case plan. The guardian ad litem does not concede error. To terminate parental rights based on lack of compliance with the case plan, compliance must be possible. K.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court cited only the father’s lack of communication with the children during their shelter as a reason for not substantially complying with the case plan. This alone is insufficient to support termination. The father completed the case plan tasks available to him while incarcerated. See T.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 905 So. 2d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights on the other two statutory grounds, but reverse and remand for the trial court to remove section 39.806(1)(e)(1) as a ground for termination. See R.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 872 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. LEVINE, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 872 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- T.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 905 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- K.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 906 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)