Case Name: In the Interest of J.J.C., a/k/a J.J.W., a child
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-12-03
Citations: 498 So. 2d 604
Docket Number: No. 85-2389
Parties: In the Interest of J.J.C., a/k/a J.J.W., a child.
Judges: GRIMES, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 498
Pages: 604–607

Head Matter:
In the Interest of J.J.C., a/k/a J.J.W., a child.
No. 85-2389.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 3, 1986.
Jordan L. Wallach, Sarasota, for appellant.
James R. DeFurio of Steves, Busch & Cole, Sarasota, for appellee.

Opinion:
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
The mother of J.J.C. attacks, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) defends, an order of the trial judge permanently committing J.J.C. to HRS for subsequent adoption and terminating the mother's parental rights. The order recites the findings of the trial judge that the mother is a chronic schizophrenic and that her condition is basically untreatable and renders her incapable of effectively raising a child. The trial judge concluded that this inability to raise a child constitutes prospective neglect and that it was manifestly in the best interests of JJ.C. that he be committed to HRS for subsequent adoption. The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the trial judge and that ordinarily would sustain an order of permanent commitment. See In the Interest of J.L.P., 416 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
However, HRS failed to offer the mother a performance agreement or permanent placement plan as required by section 409.-168(3) and (4), Florida Statutes (1985), prior to the institution of these permanent commitment proceedings. Our supreme court has held that it is error to enter an order of permanent commitment when HRS has failed to perform its statutory duty to offer a performance agreement or plan prior to the institution of the permanent commitment proceedings. Burk v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 476 So.2d 1275 (Fla.1985). The supreme court has further held that even though the safe return of the child to his or her parents is untenable, a performance agreement or plan must be offered to the parents, even if not with a view toward returning custody to them. Gerry v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 476 So.2d 1279 (Fla.1985).
The holdings in Burk and Gerry are binding upon us and require us to reverse the order of permanent commitment entered in this case. Nothing we have said will require HRS to return the child to the custody of the mother pending further proceedings.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
GRIMES, J., concurs.
HALL, J., concurs specially with opinion.