IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
C.W., Father of R.G. and T.W., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
minor children, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
CASE NO. 1D17-2696
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed October 27, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
James Nilon, Judge.
Crystal McBee Frusciante, Sunrise, and Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil
Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families,
Jacksonville, for Appellee.
BILBREY, J.
C.W., the father of R.G. and T.W., had his parental rights to those
children terminated based on the trial court’s finding that C.W. “has engaged
in a course of conduct toward the children . . . that demonstrates that the
continuing involvement of the father in the parent-child relationship
threatens the life, safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional
health of the children irrespective of the provision of services.” See §
39.806(1)(c), Fla. Stat. C.W. was not offered any services to address his
mental health or substance abuse issues. See § 39.6012, Fla. Stat. At the
termination of parental rights hearing, the Department did not offer evidence
to establish that the provision of mental health and substance abuse services
to C.W. would be futile.
In discussing termination of parental rights under section
39.806(1)(c), we have required proof either that services have been provided
to the parent or that it would be futile to even attempt to provide services to
address the parent’s issues. N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843
So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Although there are other subsections in
section 39.806(1) that do not require proof of either the provision of services
or the futility of the same as grounds for termination of parental rights, they
were not pleaded or proven before the trial court. The Department concedes
error, and we accept the concession. Therefore, the order on appeal is
reversed in part as the order pertains to the parental rights of C.W., and this
matter is remanded for further proceedings as to C.W., R.G., and T.W. In all
other respects, the order is affirmed. See In re L.C., 908 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d
2
DCA 2005).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERTS and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
3