P.C., the father, and L.H., the mother, appeal an order terminating their parental rights as to their three children. We affirm the mothers appeal without further comment. We also affirm termination of the fathers parental rights on two statutory grounds—section 39.806(1)(b) and 39.806(1)(d)(3)—but reverse termination based on section 39.806(1)(e)(1), failure to substantially comply with the case plan.
The Department concedes the record does not support a finding that the father failed to substantially comply with the case plan. The guardian ad litem does not concede error. To terminate parental rights based on lack of compliance with the case plan, compliance must be possible. K.J. v. Dept of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court cited only the fathers lack of communication with the children during their shelter as a reason for not substantially complying with the case plan. This alone is insufficient to support termination. The father completed the case plan tasks available to him while incarcerated. See T.M. v. Dept of Children & Families, 905 So. 2d 993, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm termination of the fathers parental rights on the other two statutory grounds, but reverse and remand for the trial court to remove section 39.806(1)(e)(1) as a ground for termination. See R.S. v. Dept of Children & Families, 872 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Per Curiam.
Levine, Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.