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

M.J. v. Department of Children & Families101 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) · 4D12-1342

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2012-12-12
Case
TPR
Appellant
Mother

Affirmed Termination affirmed because the mother did not comply with her case plan and could not reliably administer her HIV-positive daughter's medications.

Issues
TPR ground: case plan noncompliance / continuing abuse, TPR ground: continuing involvement threatens the child, Manifest best interests, Least restrictive means
Facts
Medical neglect

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

We affirm 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 child’s demanding regimen of medications).

As was the case with the father, the evidence indicated that the child would not receive proper, timely, and regular administration of the HIV medications she required while in the care of the mother. There was ample record evidence that despite the Department’s reasonable efforts to assist the mother, she did not substantially comply with her ease plan, and her continuing involvement in the parent-child relationship threatens the life, safety, and well-being of her medically-needy child, irrespective of the provision for services. The record thus supported the trial court’s conclusions that the Department proved statutory grounds for termination under both section 39.806(1)(e) and 39.806(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2011), that termination was in the manifest best interest of the child, and that termination was the least restrictive means of protecting the child from harm.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.

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