Parental Rights of Qualified Patients:
HB 993 would amend Florida’s termination-of-parental-rights statute to protect parents who are “qualified patients” under Florida’s medical marijuana law. The bill says a court may not deny or restrict custody, visitation, or parenting time solely because a parent is a qualified patient, and it also bars any presumption of neglect or child endangerment based only on that status. The measure expressly preserves the court’s ability to consider the child’s best interests in custody and dependency cases.
In practical terms, the bill would add a specific limitation to s. 39.806, F.S., which governs grounds for termination of parental rights. It would not legalize medical marijuana or change the underlying medical marijuana program; instead, it would prevent a parent’s lawful participation in that program from being used as the sole basis for adverse family-court action. The bill was set to take effect July 1, 2025, but it died in the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee.
HB 993 would have narrowed how Florida courts and child-welfare authorities may treat a parent’s medical marijuana status in custody, visitation, and dependency matters. It would amend s. 39.806, Florida Statutes, by adding a new subsection stating that qualified-patient status alone cannot support denial or restriction of parental rights or create a presumption of neglect or child endangerment. The bill would therefore affect family law and dependency proceedings involving parents who lawfully use medical marijuana under s. 381.986, while leaving intact the court’s broader best-interests analysis and other grounds for intervention.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to have been framed as a parental-rights protection rather than a controversial expansion of marijuana policy. Its introduction suggests support for preventing lawful medical marijuana use from automatically harming custody or dependency outcomes. However, the bill did not advance and died in the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, indicating that it did not secure enough support to move forward in the legislative process.
The main point of contention is the balance between parental rights and child-protection concerns. Supporters would likely argue that lawful medical marijuana use should not, by itself, be treated as neglect or endangerment and should not trigger custody restrictions. Opponents or cautious lawmakers may have been concerned that the bill could limit judicial discretion or complicate dependency cases by making it harder to respond to situations where marijuana use is relevant to a child’s safety. The bill attempts to address that concern by preserving the best-interests standard, but the lack of advancement suggests unresolved concerns about how the rule would operate in practice.