DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.O., the Father,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2615

[June 9, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Okeechobee County; Laurie E. Buchanan, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2019000118DPAXMX.

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 
2

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. Dep’t of Children & Families, 276 So. 3d 61, 

65 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (affirming termination where the father had several 
3

months to work on his case plan before his incarceration, yet failed to avail 

himself of services); W.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So. 2d 1131, 

1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming termination where the father “made 

no effort at all to comply with the case plan during the times when he was 

not incarcerated”); T.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So. 2d 1060, 

1061-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming termination where mother failed 

to avail herself of services offered by the Department during the period she 

was at liberty and instead continued to use drugs and failed to give the 

Department her contact information).

The father relies on cases that are distinguishable. Unlike in In re C.N., 

51 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), the Department here did not rely on 

the father’s arrest and incarceration to prove a material breach of the case 

plan. Further, T.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 905 So. 2d 993

(Fla. 4th DCA 2005), is distinguishable in that the father there was 

incarcerated at the inception of the case plan, and the Department made 

no effort to assist the father in securing services while in prison. Here, the 

father was at liberty for much of the period of his case plan, and the 

Department attempted to offer him services during that time.

The father asserts, without any record evidence, that services were not 

available during the time he was at liberty. The record indicates otherwise, 

as he underwent a substance abuse evaluation, he was referred to New 

Horizons for detox, and he was scheduled for a parenting evaluation.

The Department also sought to terminate the father’s parental rights 

based on abandonment. However, the final judgment is not clear as to 

whether the trial court terminated based on this ground. There are 

conflicting provisions in the judgment. The judgment provides on page 

two that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting termination 

on both material breach and abandonment. But the court made findings 

only as to material breach and it concluded later in the judgment that 

termination was based on material breach. As such, we remand for entry 

of an amended final judgment clearly indicating whether termination also

is based on abandonment and making the required findings. See § 

39.809(5), Fla. Stat. (2020) (requiring order on adjudicatory hearing for 

termination of parental rights petition to contain findings of fact and 

conclusions of law); § 39.811(5), Fla. Stat. (2020) (requiring termination 

order to “briefly stat[e] the facts upon which its decision to terminate the 

parental rights is made”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
4

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.