Department of Children and Families and Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office v. J.H. and E.H.

FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2026-0277
_____________________________
D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND
FAMILIES,
Appellant,
v.
J.H. and E.H.,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.
Steven Christopher Warrick, Judge.
May 29, 2026
P ER C URIAM.
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

2
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.
A FFIRMED.
KELSEY and WINOKUR , JJ., concur; O STERHAUS, C.J., concurs in
result with opinion.

3
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
O STERHAUS, C.J., concurring in result.
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”).
_____________________________
Sarah J. Rumph. Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services,
Tallahassee; 	Tonya 	DeAnne 	Davis, 	Children’s 	Legal 	Services,
Milton, for Appellant Department of Children and Families.
Sara 	Elizabeth 	Goldfarb, 	Statewide 	Director 	of 	Appeals, 	and
Mercy 	Almaguer, 	Senior 	Attorney, 	Tallahassee, 	for 	Statewide
Guardian ad Litem Office.
No appearance for Appellees.