According to Florida law, the determination of being an unfit parent is based on the statutory criteria of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, with the overarching consideration of the child’s best interests and the potential for future harm. The issue of parental fitness is a central issue when temporary custody is being considered and when there is a proceeding for the termination of parental rights.
Evaluating whether or not a parent has engaged in abuse, abandonment, or neglect of their child is done so by applying the definitions set forth in Florida Statute 39.01. Florida courts can declare a parent unfit only after the court makes a finding that a parent has engaged in any of these three behaviors. However, a parent is only considered unfit if there is clear and convincing evidence:
Accordingly, denial of appellant’s motion for custody modification, and the continued permanent custody of the children with the maternal grandparents, would be proper here only upon a finding by the trial court, supported by clear, convincing and compelling evidence, that the natural father is unfit or that placement of custody with him will be detrimental to the welfare of the children. See Webb, 546 So.2d at 1066 n. 3; Cherry v. Cherry, 508 So.2d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Pape v. Pape, 444 So.2d 1058, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Kersey v. State, 124 So.2d 726, 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). Absent such a finding, the right of a natural parent is paramount. Daugharty v. Daugharty, 571 So.2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
See In re Marriage of Matzen, 600 So.2d 487.
Additionally, when determining if a parent is unfit, the court will consider the “manifest best interests of the child”, by evaluating relevant factors:
For the purpose of determining the manifest best interests of the child, the court shall consider and evaluate all relevant factors, including, but not limited to:
(1) Any suitable permanent custody arrangement with a relative of the child. However, the availability of a nonadoptive placement with a relative may not receive greater consideration than any other factor weighing on the manifest best interest of the child and may not be considered as a factor weighing against termination of parental rights. If a child has been in a stable or preadoptive placement for not less than 6 months, the availability of a different placement, including a placement with a relative, may not be considered as a ground to deny the termination of parental rights.
(2) The ability and disposition of the parent or parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under state law instead of medical care, and other material needs of the child.
(3) The capacity of the parent or parents to care for the child to the extent that the child’s safety, well-being, and physical, mental, and emotional health will not be endangered upon the child’s return home.
(4) The present mental and physical health needs of the child and such future needs of the child to the extent that such future needs can be ascertained based on the present condition of the child.
(5) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the child and the child’s parent or parents, siblings, and other relatives, and the degree of harm to the child that would arise from the termination of parental rights and duties.
(6) The likelihood of an older child remaining in long-term foster care upon termination of parental rights, due to emotional or behavioral problems or any special needs of the child.
(7) The child’s ability to form a significant relationship with a parental substitute and the likelihood that the child will enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of permanent termination of parental rights and duties.
(8) The length of time that the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
(9) The depth of the relationship existing between the child and the present custodian.
(10) The reasonable preferences and wishes of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
(11) The recommendations for the child provided by the child’s guardian ad litem or legal representative.
See Florida Statute 39.810.
Finally, when termination of parental rights is being considered, Florida law requires proof that the parent suffers from a condition likely to cause future harm to the child and that this condition is expected to continue in order for a parent to be deemed unfit:
To establish the first evidentiary requirement, “the evidence must show a parent’s past conduct or current mental condition makes the risk of future harm to the child likely.” D.B., 87 So. 3d at 1282. The Department was required to show that future harm to the children could be “clearly and certainly predicted,” is “likely to happen,” or is “expected” based on the mother’s past conduct. J.F., 890 So. 2d at 440.
For instance, expected future harm was found in a domestic violence case where the mother continued to live with the father; mere awareness by children of domestic violence is harmful; and the father’s antisocial personality disorder and other character traits made future domestic violence in the home likely. T.O., 21 So. 3d at 173. Again, expected future harm was found in Palmer v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 547 So. 2d 981, 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), where the father was an untreated pedophile; experts *115 testified that untreated pedophilia almost certainly results in recidivism; and placing a child in the home is “tantamount to placing matches in a tinderbox.”
See Q.L. v. Department of Children and Families, 280 So.3d 107
Related:
Advocating for Your Child’s Best Interest
Can Domestic Violence Be A Basis To Modify A Parenting Plan?
_______________
Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to send us an email or call him now at (954) 880-1302.
If you found this information helpful, please share this article and bookmark it for your future reference.