Blog

Termination of Parental Rights for Egregious Conduct in the Orlando, Florida Area

In EK & RK v DCF, 56 FLW D1768b (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), the issue before the appellate court was: A trial court denies a petition for termination of a father’s parental rights (TPR) based solely on its determination that the evidence did not demonstrate that termination was the least restrictive means to protect the children. 

May the court do this, even though it concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father had engaged in egregious conduct set out by section 49.806(1)(f) as a ground for termination? The appellate court said “no” and reversed the trial court. 

Requirements for Termination of Parental Rights

The appellate court stated that before a trial court can terminate a parent’s rights to a child, there must be clear and convincing evidence of the “elements required for termination.” There are two statutory elements for termination:  

1. The existence of at least one of the grounds for termination specified by section 39.806. The trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the grounds for termination under the section has been established. 
2. The other element to be proved is that the child’s manifest best interests would be served by granting the petition to terminate parental rights, requiring the trial court to consider “the manifest best interest of the child” in a termination hearing by evaluating all relevant factors, including those specifically enumerated; also requiring that a TPR petition alleges facts showing that the termination will served the manifest best interest of the child in accordance with the factors set out in section 39.810. 

The Supreme Court, however, requires that one more element be demonstrated— one that does not appear in the text of the applicable statutes. By judicial implication, before  a TPR may be granted, there must be a showing that the termination is the least restrictive means of protecting the child from serious harm. 

This requirement flows from the recognition that the interest of a parent and his children undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not go away simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. 

In this case, where there is clear and convincing  evidence of the parent having engaged in the egregious conduct described in section 39.806 (f), a TPR is warranted and constitutional upon sufficient proof of the other statutory element— manifest best interest of the child— without the need to judicially imply the extra, least-restrictive-means element into the text. 

If you have more questions regarding a Termination of Parental Rights legal matter, you may call Ann Marie Giordano Gilden at Ann Marie Giordano Gilden, P.A. at 407-732-7620 and set an initial consultation. 

This article is for informational purposes only and does not form an attorney client privilege.