Department of Children and Families, Appellant, v. J.H. and E.H., Appellees. (2026)

The Department of Children and Families appeals an order in which the trial court denied the Department's petition for immediate termination of Appellees’ parental rights. The court denied the petition despite finding by clear and convincing evidence that one of the parents inflicted serious injuries on their three-week-old baby boy, and that legal grounds existed to terminate parental rights as to both the baby and his toddler sister. The parents said the baby was gassy, so they “bicycled” his legs and “rubbed” his lower chest and abdomen to help him pass the gas. They said that within a day or two, they noticed bruising and swelling on his leg, so they took him to the pediatrician, who sent him to the emergency room, where the Child Protection Team was called. Medical testing established that the baby had visible patterned bruising, and had suffered a total of eleven (11) fractures that had not started to heal: a right fractured femur, likely caused by forceful twisting or wrenching; a fracture in his left tibia; and multiple fractures to his middle and lower ribs.

The trial court found that both parents had committed “egregious conduct” and aggravated battery, sufficient to justify termination of parental rights. See § 39.806(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2025) (defining egregious conduct); § 39.806(1)(g), Fla. Stat. (defining aggravated battery). The children were adjudicated dependent. The trial court placed them in the care of the father's sister, who moved into the parents’ home with the children. The parents have participated in counseling and exercised regular supervised visitation with the children, with no adverse results reported.

Another significant fact is the passage of time between the abuse and the order on appeal. Although the abuse occurred in the first days of April, 2025, the trial did not start until September 18. Trial was continued twice, spanning three non-consecutive days and ending on October 28. The trial court rendered the order on appeal on December 30, 2025. The order addressed all statutory factors of the children's best interests. See § 39.810, Fla. Stat. While the trial court found that grounds for termination had been proven, the court also found it significant that the parents had been, in the words of the case manager, the “most upstanding” parents in the manager's experience. With the benefit of reports on the children's then-current well-being, the continued involvement of a relative caregiver in the home, and the parents’ access to services, the trial court concluded that reunification might be possible with services, a safety plan, and ongoing judicial oversight. Recognizing that under other circumstances the results could have been very different and even tragic, it is only because of these unique facts that we can affirm.

Affirmed.

I concur with the result given the trial court's findings on the children's best interests and because the children remain in the custody of a stable relative caregiver, not the parents, while the trial court oversees the parents’ receipt of additional services and the administration of a case safety plan. See N.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 996, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (explaining the “highly deferential” standard of review in termination of parental rights cases under which a court's final order is presumed correct “and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous or lacking in evidentiary support”).

Per Curiam.

Kelsey and Winokur, JJ., concur; Osterhaus, C.J., concurs in result with opinion.