Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

C.W. v. Department of Children & Families228 So. 3d 725 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) · 1D17-2696

Court
1st DCA
Decided
2017-10-27
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father
County
Alachua

Reversed & remanded Termination of the father's rights reversed because DCF offered no services and did not prove services would be futile, as required for the threat-to-child ground.

Issue
TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child
Facts
Parent's mental illness, Parent's substance abuse

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

Court's PDF On CourtListener
BILBREY, J.

C.W., the father of R.G. and T.W., had his parental rights to those children terminated based on the trial court’s finding that C.W. “has engaged in a course of conduct toward the children ... that demonstrates that the continuing involvement of the father in the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the children irrespective of the provision of services.” See § 39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat. C.W. was not offered any services to address his mental health or substance abuse issues. See § 39.6012, Fla. Stat. At the termination of parental rights hearing, the Department did not offer evidence to establish that the provision of mental health and substance abuse services to C.W. would be futile.

In discussing termination of parental rights under section 39.806(1)(c), we have required proof either that services have been provided to the parent or that it would be futile to even attempt to provide services to address the parent’s issues. N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Although there are ,other subsections in section 39.806(1) that do not require proof of either the provision of services or the futility of the same as grounds for termination of parental rights, they were not pleaded or proven before the trial court. The Department concedes error, and we accept the concession. Therefore, the order on appeal is reversed in part as the order pertains to the parental rights of C.W., and this matter is remanded for further proceedings as to C.W., R.G., and T.W. In all other respects, the order is affirmed. See In re L.C., 908 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.