Case Name: Nuris JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-06-01
Citations: 619 So. 2d 405
Docket Number: No. 92-1580
Parties: Nuris JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 619
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
Nuris JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, and the Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.
No. 92-1580.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 1, 1993.
Barbara P. Munoz, Miami Lakes, for appellant.
Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel and Steven M. Goldsmith and Charles M. Auslander, Miami, for ap-pellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is brought from an order terminating parental rights. We agree with the trial court that the performance agreement accepted by Jimenez was "hardly the 'meaningful document' contemplated by [section 39.01(40), Florida statutes]" because it failed to delineate, with reasonable specificity, the tasks Jimenez had to perform in order to correct the problems or conditions which were the basis for the adjudication of dependency. For that reason it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the appellant's efforts to comply fell short of expectations. See John Doe & Jane Doe v. State of Delaware, 450 U.S. 382, 101 S.Ct. 1495, 67 L.Ed.2d 312 (1981) (Brennan, J. dissenting to denial of review) (whether Delaware's guidelines for determining permanent termination of the parental-child relationship are unconstitutionally vague and indefinite presents a justiciable federal question).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.