RL v. Department of Children and Families
955 So. 2d 1240, 2007 WL 1377892
Opinion
R.L., Father of C.F. and M.S., Children, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Peter T. Hickey, Sanford, for Appellant.
Charles D. Peters, Department of Children and Families, Orlando, for Appellee, Department of Children and Families.
Mercedes E. Scopetta, Orlando, for Appellee, Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
[T]he existence of a long-term relative placement is not the "dispositive constitutional consideration" in applying the least restrictive means test. Nor is the least restrictive means test intended to preserve the parental bonds at the cost of a child's future. Instead, this test requires that "those measures short of termination should be utilized if such measures can permit the safe reestablishment of the parent-child bond." The "clear purpose" of the least restrictive means test is "reestablishment of the parent-child bond."
A.J. v. K.A.O., 951 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citations omitted).
GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RL v. Department of Children and Families, 955 So. 2d 1240, 2007 WL 1377892 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).
955 So. 2d 1240 (RL v. Department of Children and Families) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
S.M., etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Families
202 So. 3d 769 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2016)
S.M., the Mother v. Department of Children And Families
190 So. 3d 125 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Department of Children & Family Services v. K.D.
88 So. 3d 977 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)