Jimenez v. Department of Health & Rehabilatative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jimenez v. Department of Health & Rehabilatative Services

619 So. 2d 405, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6058, 1993 WL 182690

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1580

StatusPublished

This text of 619 So. 2d 405 (Jimenez v. Department of Health & Rehabilatative Services) 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

Jimenez v. Department of Health & Rehabilatative Services, 619 So. 2d 405, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6058, 1993 WL 182690 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 405, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6058, 1993 WL 182690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-department-of-health-rehabilatative-services-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack