I.T. v. Department of Children and Families
The Third District reversed two judgments terminating a mother's parental rights to four children, holding that the Department failed to prove any statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence or that termination was the least restrictive means. The court emphasized that the Department relied on a two-year-old psychological evaluation predating the mother's completion of services, and that her non-compliance stemmed from poverty and the Department's failure to assist, which section 39.806(1)(e) expressly excludes as a basis for termination.
Key facts
- Mother of four children had parental rights terminated by trial court; Department of Children and Families alleged mother's low intellectual functioning and noncompliance with case plan services justified termination.
- Mother completed psychological evaluation two years before trial showing low intellectual functioning; she subsequently engaged in therapy and rehabilitative services but struggled with case plan compliance due to financial hardship and lack of Department assistance with housing and employment.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion gives dependency and family practitioners a citable roadmap for attacking TPR judgments built on outdated expert evaluations and poverty-driven case-plan noncompliance, grounding each point in the statutory… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.