C.W., Father of R.G. and T.W., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.W., Father of R.G. and T.W., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families

228 So. 3d 725

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D17-2696

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 So. 3d 725 (C.W., Father of R.G. and T.W., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C.W., Father of R.G. and T.W., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families, 228 So. 3d 725 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

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(l)(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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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(l)(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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 So. 3d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cw-father-of-rg-and-tw-minor-children-v-department-of-children-and-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack