STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEPHEN GROFF, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the statute requiring reporting of child abuse applies only to persons 'serving children,' and therefore does not apply to a doctor who treated the father but not the child.
A psychiatrist treated a father but not his daughter. The state alleged the psychiatrist had reason to believe the father was abusing the daughter and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals an order granting appellee Dr. Stephen Groff’s motion to dismiss the second amended information. We affirm.
Dr. Groff is a psychiatrist. In that capacity, he treated one George Hoover but did not treat Hoover’s daughter. The state alleged in its information that Dr. Groff had reason to believe that George Hoover was abusing his daughter and that Dr. Groff did not report the abuse nor cause reports to be filed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Dr. Groff was charged pursuant to section 827.07(4), Florida Statutes (1975), which provides:
Any person, including, but not limited to, any physician, nurse, teacher, social worker, or employee of a public or private facility serving children, who has reason to believe that a child has been subject to abuse shall report or cause reports to be made to the department.
We are of the opinion that the phrase “any person” is qualified by the phrase “serving children.” Thus, the phrase “any person” includes all those who serve children and is not limited to physicians, nurses, teachers, social workers or employees of public or private facilities.
Dr. Groff was not treating George Hoover’s daughter and, in fact, the record shows he had never met the daughter. He does not, therefore, fall under the mandatory provision of section 827.07(4), Florida Statutes (1975), which requires the “serving of children.” The information against him was properly dismissed.
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leet v. State, 595 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…fers from the same type of infirmities which I have noted in regard to the use of the term "whoever" in section 827.04(1). It has been construed to be subject to some limitations, but not in the context of the facts of this case. See State v. Groff, 409 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). . I do not pursue the effect of this violation of statutory duty further because it was not specially argued to the jury or addressed in this appeal. I do note, however, that more than one of the state’s witnesses testified to o…