Padgett v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV.

543 So. 2d 1317, 1989 WL 56316
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 1, 1989
Docket88-1845, 88-1846
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 1317 (Padgett v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV.) 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
Padgett v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV., 543 So. 2d 1317, 1989 WL 56316 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

543 So.2d 1317 (1989)

Thomas PADGETT and Mary Hartline Padgett, Appellants,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.

Nos. 88-1845, 88-1846.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 1, 1989.

Lawrence J. Semento of Lawrence J. Semento, P.A., Eustis, for appellant Thomas Padgett.

Mark A. Nacke of Merritt and Watson, P.A., Eustis, for appellant Mary Hartline Padgett.

Linda K. Harris, Dist. III Legal Counsel, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

W.L.P., the minor child herein at issue, was taken from his parents immediately after his birth in December, 1985, through an HRS dependency proceeding. He has since remained in foster care. The final order of permanent commitment was entered in August, 1988; it is the subject of this appeal.

At the termination hearing, clear and convincing evidence was presented that W.L.P. would be subject to abuse and neglect if left with his natural parents, who had been guilty of these offenses with other children. There was no such evidence that the parents had ever been guilty of such abuse or neglect[1] directed against *1318 W.L.P. since they never had physical custody of him.

The clear legal issue in this case, then, is the viability of the concept of "prospective" abuse and/or neglect, a concept which we noted in Spankie v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 513 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1987), and which was adopted in In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also, In the Interest of W.D.N., 443 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The dissent in Spankie contended that such "prospective" misconduct is speculative and, therefore, legally insufficient to support a judgment severing parental rights.

In accordance with J.L.P. and W.D.N., we affirm the instant judgment, and certify the question of "prospective" abuse, neglect or abandonment under Chapter 39 to be one of great public importance pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[1] HRS argues that the parents' noncompliance with all of the terms of a performance agreement, as subjectively evaluated by HRS, equates with neglect under section 39.464(3), Florida Statutes (1987). We cannot accept this argument because of its constitutional infirmities, as explained in In the Interest of R.W., 495 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1986) and In the Interest of R.W., 481 So.2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

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

Related

In re Jane Doe 13-A
136 So. 3d 748 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Smith v. DHRS
665 So. 2d 1153 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Padgett v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services
577 So. 2d 565 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)
Doe v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services
563 So. 2d 655 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
In Interest of DJS
563 So. 2d 655 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Palmer v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV.
547 So. 2d 981 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
543 So. 2d 1317, 1989 WL 56316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padgett-v-dept-of-health-rehab-serv-fladistctapp-1989.