J.O. v. State

321 So.3d 258

J.O., the Father, Appellant,

v.State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D20-2615

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 9, 2021]

Crystal J. Marsh of Marsh Law Firm, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Children's Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

Per Curiam.

The Department of Children and Families petitioned for termination of parental rights as to the mother and J.O. ("the father") based on a material breach of the case plan and abandonment of the children. After an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents. The father appeals.

We affirm the termination of parental rights on the ground of material breach of the case plan. The evidence established that in February 2020, the father consented to a dependency case plan, which required him to complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow up on recommendations, submit to random drug tests, contact his case manager every fourteen days, undergo a mental health evaluation and complete any treatment and education determined to be necessary, participate in a batterer's intervention program, undergo a parenting evaluation, and participate in parenting education classes and follow all recommendations, among other tasks. The parents were granted supervised visitation. The case plan had a goal of reunification by August 17, 2020.

On the day the case plan was accepted, the case manager referred the father to a batterer's intervention program. There is no evidence he attended. Shortly after the case plan began, the father submitted to two drug tests and a substance abuse evaluation. He tested positive for marijuana, methamphetamine, amphetamines, and alcohol. The substance abuse evaluator advised the father to enter the New Horizons detox program, and she informed him he would be referred to an inpatient program while there. She recommended he complete a 90-day inpatient substance abuse program and submit to further random drug tests. The father's case manager also instructed the father go to the detox program. The father failed to follow through and did not submit to any more drug tests. A parenting evaluation was scheduled for the day after the father's substance abuse evaluation, but he failed to attend. Afterward, and for a three-month period, the father did not respond to the case manager's telephone calls and texts, actually hanging up on her on the occasion she was able to make contact with him. He did not submit a requested schedule for supervised visitation, and thus did not take advantage of the opportunity to have supervised visits with the children. He did not provide any sort of child support and did not ask how the children were doing. The case manager did not refer the father for other services, such as a mental health evaluation and parenting classes, because the father needed to attend a detox program first.

In early April 2020, during an encounter with the father, a detective with the Okeechobee Sheriff's Office found synthetic marijuana in the father's vehicle. The father was not arrested at that time due to capacity limits at the jail. The father was arrested in late May 2020 for possession of methamphetamine. At that point in time, due to the pandemic, the jail no longer offered services such as Narcotics Anonymous meetings. After the father was arrested, he wrote letters to the children.

We affirm the termination of the father's parental rights, as there was competent substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding of a material breach of the case plan. The father argues that he was unable to comply with his case plan due to his incarceration and the Department's lack of a provision of services. We reject this argument, as the father was at liberty for a significant period of the case plan and failed to report to detox and keep in contact with his case manager so that he could avail himself of services. See A.F. v....