Florida court terminates a father's parental rights, but then daddy gets hit by a car and dies and the court wants to give him his parental rights back

I was just reading the Palm Beach Post and there is this unusual story about a man who lost not only custody, but all legal rights to his daughter due to the fact that he was a crack addict and the court felt it was not in the child’s best interest to have him as her father.
So the state put the child in foster care and she was due to be adopted by her foster parents when her father was killed while crossing the highway.
All of a sudden, the same court and the same lawyers want the court to re-instate the father’s parental rights, now that he’s dead. They now feel it is in the best interest of the child to have him as a father because his estate is expected to bring a wrongful death action against the person who killed him and the money they get will likely be substantial and the only way for the daughter to get a portion of that money, is if he’s still her “father”.
So they want to re-instate his rights posthumously. Isn’t that a kicker? The same court that ruled it was in the best interest of the child to terminate this man’s parental rights is the same court who now that he is dead is saying that it is in the best interest of the child to reinstate his parental rights just so the child can get any money that his estate gets for his wrongful death.
Hme….What do I think about that? Yikes. I think it is slightly ew. I mean, I understand the reasoning. But I don’t know. It’s….I don’t know. I don’t know what to say about this one. Sure the child deserves to be cared for financially. But the state was going to do that, and her foster parents were in the process of adopting her and her father’s parental rights had been taken away.
To reinstate it JUST FOR THE MONEY just seems slightly….I don’t know….greedy? Um… calculated? Er…cold? I don’t know. I am having trouble wrapping my head around this one. What do you think? Read the story here: