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

Jimenez v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services619 So. 2d 405 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) · DCA92-1580

Court
District Court of Appeal
Decided
1993-06-01
Law cited
§ 39.01(40)
On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

This appeal is brought from an order terminating parental rights. We agree with the trial court that the performance agreement accepted by Jimenez was “hardly the ‘meaningful document’ contemplated by [section 39.01(40), Florida statutes]” because it failed to delineate, with reasonable specificity, the tasks Jimenez had to perform in order to correct the problems or conditions which were the basis for the adjudication of dependency. For that reason it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the appellant’s efforts to comply fell short of expectations. See John Doe & Jane Doe v. State of Delaware, 450 U.S. 382, 101 S.Ct. 1495, 67 L.Ed.2d 312 (1981) (Brennan, J. dissenting to denial of review) (whether Delaware’s guidelines for determining permanent termination of the parental-child relationship are unconstitutionally vague and indefinite presents a justiciable federal question).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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