MM v. Department of Children and Families
This text of 931 So. 2d 280 (MM 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
M.M. Father of N.M., T.M., C.M., and B.M., Children, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Diana Kilpatrick Simpson of Diana Kilpatrick Simpson, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant.
Ralph J. McMurphy, of Department of Children & Families, Wildwood, for Appellee.
Patricia M. Propheter, Orlando, for Guardian Ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. K.B. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 834 So.2d 368, 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (observing that "the `least restrictive means' test set out in Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991), is not intended to preserve the parental bonds at the cost of a child's future. . . . The `least restrictive means' test simply requires that measures short of termination *281 be utilized if such measures would permit the safe re-establishment of the parent-child bond.") (citation omitted).
SHARP, W., THOMPSON, and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
931 So. 2d 280, 2006 WL 1708473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mm-v-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2006.