V.S., THE MOTHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

V.S., the Mother, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellees.

No. 4D20-1833

[August 4, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Alberto Ribas, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 19-3330 CJ-DP.

Albert W. Guffanti of Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Children’s Legal Services, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Samantha Costas Valley, Senior Attorney of the Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for appellee Guardian ad Litem.

ON MOTION TO CERTIFY A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.

PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion to certify a question of great public importance. The constitutionality of the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, affects fundamental parental interests. Before issuance of our opinion in this case, no court has directly addressed the constitutionality of the statute, although some have questioned it. See In Interest of C.M.H., 288 So. 3d 722, 724 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); J.F. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 198 So. 3d 706, 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

The supreme court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the district courts which expressly declare a statute constitutional. Fla.

R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(i). The majority decision declares the amendment valid. In addition, we certify the following question to the supreme court:

DOES THE 2014 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 39.806(1)(f), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO PROOF OF NEXUS BETWEEN EGREGIOUS CONDUCT TOWARDS ONE CHILD IS REQUIRED TO TERMINATE THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CHILD’S SIBLINGS, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REMOVE THE STATE’S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE EGREGIOUS CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM TO EACH SIBLING AND IS THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF PROTECTING THE SIBLING(S) FROM SERIOUS HARM?

CONNER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

• • * *