In life, he was a lousy father.

His love for the crack pipe was mightier than the love for his children, a Broward judge decided, and ended his parental rights to his pre-teen daughter.

But before his appeal of the judge's order was final, the father known in court records as C.A. died after being struck by a car.

And now, an appeals court is wondering: Perhaps the little girl should keep her father, after all.

In a case believed to be a first in Florida, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach has ordered Broward Circuit Judge John Frusciante to reconsider his order ending C.A.'s rights as a father. Perhaps, the court says, it is in the girl's ``best interests'' to retain a relationship with C.A. now that he is dead.

At stake: perhaps a large sum of money. If the girl -- who is not named in the appeals court decision -- has no legal ties to her father, she would have no right to claim any proceeds from a wrongful-death lawsuit that may be filed by her father's estate, the opinion says.

In a nod to state child welfare administrators who asked the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of C.A.'s death, the three-judge appeals panel wrote that ``even if the final judgment [severing C.A.'s rights was] soundly based and affirmed, it may not now be in the best interests of the child to do so.''

Child welfare legal experts, including Frusciante, say the ruling appears to be the first time a Florida judge has been asked to restore a parent's rights after death.

``Obviously, this case presents challenges that we haven't dealt with yet,'' Frusciante said.

Said Paolo Annino, director of the Public Interest Law Center at Florida State University: ``I have never seen either the Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, or its successor, the Department of Children & Families, terminate parental rights and then reverse themselves.''

Certainly not after a parent has died, Annino added.

``We want to do what is in the best interests of children,'' said Mary Cagle, DCF's top child welfare attorney. ``When the father died, we stepped back to see what was in the best interests of these children.''

Attorneys for C.A. at the Regional Counsel office in West Palm Beach did not reply to several calls for comment.

C.A. and his wife had two children, a now-13-year-old girl and her 16-year-old brother, sources with knowledge of the case told The Miami Herald. The two children had remained in state care for a long time as child welfare administrators tried to help their parents beat their cocaine addictions -- a quest that ultimately proved futile.

One of the children had even tested positive for cocaine, a source said.

After a hearing, C.A.'s wife lost custody of the daughter forever, a decision that was affirmed on appeal. C.A. appealed separately, and his case was still pending when he was hit by a car when walking near a highway in Broward.

A source familiar with the case said Frusciante severed C.A.'s ties to the girl because, at the time, she was living with foster parents who wished to eventually adopt her. But the court did not terminate the dad's rights over the older brother, who was living in a group home with little hope he would be adopted.

That meant the brother would be entitled to inherit any proceeds from a wrongful-death suit, but his sister would not. The opinion -- written by Judge Gary M. Farmer and signed by judges Fred A. Hazouri and Cory J. Ciklin -- provides no names or other information regarding the children and their birth mother.

It was the Department of Children & Families that first suggested C.A.'s daughter might be better off retaining a legal tie to her father, said Cagle, and, given the circumstances of C.A.'s death, had suggested the man's estate hire a lawyer to pursue a wrongful death claim.

``When the father died, people said, `Wow, this kid could be disenfranchised from any money that might result.' How can we get before the Court of Appeals and find a way to not make that happen?''

The appeals court's July 22 opinion suggested state law and legal precedent had little to offer to decide such a question.

To settle the issue, the appeals court panel sought advice from ``other legal contexts,'' such as divorce cases and criminal law.

They concluded: ``Neitherthe criminal nor [divorce] rule is an exact fit for this . . .case.''

``We must not forget that the overriding concern in [cases involving the termination of a parent's rights] is for the best interests of the child, not the parents,'' the opinion states. ``The state initiates [termination] proceedings, not to punish parents who fail to met their obligations to the child, but to protect the child and her interests.''

``The state's interest in vindicating judgments presumed correct must give way to that paramount concern, the best interests of the child.''

Join the discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. In order to post comments, you must be a registered user of MiamiHerald.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.repliedToText@

@Nyx.replyAnswerText@

Reply to this Comment @Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@