G.C., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
This text of G.C., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (G.C., THE MOTHER 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed January 12, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1342 Lower Tribunal No. 18-15594 ________________
G.C., The Mother, Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Denise Martinez-Scanziani, Judge.
Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, and Morgan L. Weinstein (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.
Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals (Tallahassee), for appellee Guardian ad Litem (Tallahassee).
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
LOGUE, J. G.C. appeals the decision terminating her parental rights over her
minor son K.C. K.C. was sheltered and placed in the care of G.C.’s aunt and
uncle two months after the child was born due to several incidents where the
child was placed at risk when G.C. violated an in-home safety plan. G.C. was
given a case plan with the goal of unification and provided services for two
years. The Department of Children and Families filed a petition for
termination of parental rights. After a three-day trial, the trial court granted
the petition.
The trial court found that the Department had proved grounds for
termination of G.C.’s parental rights under subsections 39.806(1)(c)
(parent’s continuing involvement threatens the child, irrespective of
services); (1)(e)(1) (continuing abuse or neglect based on failure to
substantially comply with case plan); (1)(e)(2) (material breach of case plan);
and (1)(e)(3) (child in care for 12 of last 22 months and conditions for return
not met), of the Florida Statutes (2021). The trial court further found that
termination is in K.C.’s manifest best interests and is the least restrictive
means to protect him from harm.
On appeal, G.C. does not contend that she is presently able to safely
reunite with the child, and she admitted at trial that after two years of services
she has not yet qualified for unsupervised visitation with the child. She
2 argues that she should have been provided additional, specialized services
in light of her borderline personality disorder. G.C. did not raise this argument
in the court below and even now, on appeal, fails to indicate with any
precision what further services could have led to a different outcome. In any
event, the record reflects that (1) G.C. was provided with services
recommended by the two psychologists who diagnosed the borderline
personality disorder and (2) her dyadic (parent-child) therapist provided her
specialized individual therapy to address parenting issues related to her
condition.
In these circumstances, the record supports the trial court’s findings
that G.C. has not substantially complied with the case plan and that
termination of G.C.’s parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect
K.C. from harm. See § 39.01(84) Fla. Stat. (2021)(“‘Substantial compliance’
means that the circumstances which caused the creation of the case plan
have been significantly remedied to the extent that the well-being and safety
of the child will not be endangered upon the child’s remaining with or being
returned to the child’s parent.”); S.M. v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 202 So.
3d 769, 772 (Fla. 2016) (“The least restrictive means prong does not require
the trial court to consider a permanent guardianship, instead of adoption,
after the grounds for termination have been established by clear and
3 convincing evidence and reunification would not be in the manifest best
interests of the child.”).
Although not necessary to our decision, we note as an aside that the
maternal aunt and uncle, who have been acting as K.C.’s caregivers for the
last two and a half years, are willing to adopt K.C. See § 39.001(1)(h), Fla.
Stat. (2021) (permanent placement should be achieved within one year); §
39.0136(1), Fla. Stat. (stating “time is of the essence for establishing
permanency for a child in the dependency system” and time limitations are
a right of the child).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
G.C., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gc-the-mother-v-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2022.