J.H. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J.H. v. Department of Children & Families

161 So. 3d 499, 2014 WL 3559381, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11380

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2014

DocketNo. 5D14-500

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 So. 3d 499 (J.H. v. Department of Children & 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

J.H. v. Department of Children & Families, 161 So. 3d 499, 2014 WL 3559381, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11380 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANDER, J.

We affirm the final judgment entered below. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the Department of Children and Families filing a new petition for termination of parental rights should J.H. be convicted and sentenced to prison on his pending felony charges. A significant prison sentence would not only potentially provide new legal grounds for termination,¹ it would require the trial court to reexamine the issue of whether termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect the child, A.H. The least restrictive meáns test is not intended to preserve a parental bond at the cost of a child’s future. Rather, it simply requires that “measures short of termination should be utilized if such measures can permit the safe reestablishment of the parent-child bond.” A.J. v. K.A.O., 951 So.2d 30, 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Where there is a lack of a meaningful relationship between a parent and a child, caused in large part by the parent’s criminal propensities, this Court has previously concluded that termination of parental rights is not barred by application of the least restrictive means test. See, e.g., F.L.C. v. G.C., 24 So.3d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); A.J., 951 So.2d at 30.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

EVANDER, J.

We affirm the final judgment entered below. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the Department of Children and Families filing a new petition for termination of parental rights should J.H. be convicted and sentenced to prison on his pending felony charges. A significant prison sentence would not only potentially provide new legal grounds for termination,¹ it would require the trial court to reexamine the issue of whether termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means to protect the child, A.H. The least restrictive meáns test is not intended to preserve a parental bond at the cost of a child’s future. Rather, it simply requires that “measures short of termination should be utilized if such measures can permit the safe reestablishment of the parent-child bond.” A.J. v. K.A.O., 951 So.2d 30, 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Where there is a lack of a meaningful relationship between a parent and a child, caused in large part by the parent’s criminal propensities, this Court has previously concluded that termination of parental rights is not barred by application of the least restrictive means test. See, e.g., F.L.C. v. G.C., 24 So.3d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); A.J., 951 So.2d at 30.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 3d 499, 2014 WL 3559381, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jh-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack