IN THE INTEREST OF E.H., A MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
A natural mother appealed a dependency adjudication and temporary custody award to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on constitutional and evidentiary grounds. The court affirmed the finding of child neglect, rejecting arguments that the relevant statute was unconstitutionally vague, that psychiatric testimony was improperly admitted, and that the evidence was insufficient.
The court held that: (1) the statute is not unconstitutionally vague and provides sufficient notice to parents of conduct to avoid; (2) the psychiatric testimony was properly admitted because the psychotherapist-patient privilege is statutorily abrogated in child abuse and neglect cases, and the examination did not violate the mother's self-incrimination rights; and (3) the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the neglect finding.
[1] A statute providing a basis for removing a child from a parent's custody is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives sufficient notice of the type of activity parents mus…
[2] The psychotherapist-patient privilege is statutorily abrogated in judicial proceedings involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a child is considered neglected "when a parent ... permits a child to live in an environment when such ... environment causes the child's ... mental or emotional health ... to be in danger of being significantly impaired."”
Definition of neglect under the statute being challenged as unconstitutionally vague.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was adjudicated dependent under Florida law, with temporary custody awarded to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The natur…
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 Child Dependency Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order adjudicating a child dependent and awarding temporary custody of the child to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The natural mother prosecutes this appeal raising three alleged errors.
We affirm. First, the natural mother contends that Section 39.01(26), Florida Statutes (1981), under which her child was adjudicated dependent, is unconstitutional because it provides a facially vague standard as a basis for removing a child from a parent’s custody. We cannot agree. The above statute provides, in pertinent part, that a child is considered neglected “when a parent ... permits a child to live in an environment when such ... environment causes the child’s ... mental or emotional health ... to be in danger of being significantly impaired.” § 39.01(26), Fla.Stat. (1981).
We think that, under the established Florida case law interpreting analogous statutes, the instant statute meets the minimal constitutional tests for definiteness in a non-penal statute. As the statute is clearly designed to protect children in need of care, and because circumstances warranting such protection arise in such a variety of ways, the legislature was not required, as urged, to state explicitly all activities or actions by parents which could result in a finding of child neglect. The statute, we think, gives sufficient notice to parents of the type of activity they must avoid to preclude such a finding. State v. Joyce, 361 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1978); In Re Camm, 294 So. 2d 318 (Fla.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 866, 95 S.Ct. 121, 42 L.Ed.2d 103 (1974); see also D’Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1977).
Second, the natural mother contends that certain testimony given at the hearing below by a psychiatrist concerning the latter’s examination of the natural mother was erroneously admitted in evidence over objection. We cannot agree. Plainly, the testimony was not excludable as falling within the psychotherapist-patient privilege [§ 90.503, Fla.Stat. (1981)] because such privilege is by statute specifically abrogated in cases, as here, “involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.” § 827.07(8), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Contrary to the natural mother’s contention, we think this statute by its express language applies to Chapter 39 child neglect proceedings, as the statute is made applicable to “any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect.” § 827.07(8), Fla. Stat. (1981).
Beyond that, we are unable to say, as urged, that the psychiatric examination conducted herein violated the natural mother’s self-incrimination rights under Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.190(f), 8.220(c).
These rules apply only to testimony given by a parent or guardian at certain court hearings, not to answers given by a parent or guardian during a psychiatric examination.
Finally, the natural mother contends that the evidence presented below was insufficient to sustain a finding of child neglect. We cannot agree. Without detailing the evidence presented, we think it more than sufficient to sustain the order under review. Interest of J.L.P., 416 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of I.T. v. State, 532 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…y situation involving known or suspected child abuse or neglect.” § 415.512, Fla. Stat. (1985). We have previously held that the statutory abrogation “by its express language applies to Chapter 39 child neglect proceedings." In the Interest of E.H., 443 So. 2d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). E.H. involved a psychiatrist’s testimony concerning his examination of the natural mother in the course of a dependency proceeding. Such a proceeding may involve the question of prospective neglect, In the Interest of J.L.P…
-
Carson v. Jackson, 466 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…use or neglect. (Emphasis supplied.) The facts reflect that the case below is a “judicial proceeding” and the claim, albeit for civil damages, relates to “child abuse or neglect.” In E.H. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 443 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the trial court had adjudicated a child a dependent and awarded custody to the Department of Health [*1191] and Rehabilitative Services. The mother appealed, arguing in part that certain testimony given at the hearing by the psyc…
-
Lenorris Hardy v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…red neglected “when a parent ... permits a child to live in an environment when such ... environment causes the child’s physical ... health to be in danger of being significantly impaired.” See E.H. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 443 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (finding this language was not unconstitutionally vague). This law was designed to protect children in need of services in a variety of circumstances. Id. at 1084. This language clearly applies to parents who allow their child to…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Talbot D'Alemberte v. William (Dale) Anderson, 349 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1977)
- In the Interest of J. L. P., 416 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- In re In the Interest of Vincent Camm, 294 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Joyce, 361 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1978)
- Santana v. New York, 419 U.S. 866 (U.S. 1974)
- Hernandez v. Craven, 419 U.S. 866 (U.S. 1974)