IN THE INTEREST OF M.T.T., A CHILD
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.
This case involves an appeal of a trial court's order adjudicating a four-year-old child dependent and terminating parental rights after her two-year-old sister died from a drug overdose involving medications belonging to the parents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of clear and convincing evidence of egregious prospective abuse toward the surviving child.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that clear and convincing evidence supported a determination of dependency based on egregious prospective abuse. The prior death of the sibling from parental medication, combined with the parents' inability to explain drug access and delay in seeking medical help, sufficiently demonstrated risk to the surviving child.
[1] A child may be adjudicated dependent based on egregious prospective abuse, even if the abuse has not yet occurred.
[2] Evidence of prior abuse or neglect of other children can support the termination of parental rights.
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“even the termination of parental rights can be supported by a showing of prior abuse or neglect of other children”
Establishes the legal principle that conduct toward one child can support dependency findings for a sibling
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parents' 2-year-old daughter M.T. died from ingesting egregious levels of Fioricet and toxic levels of Valium (diazepam). The parents discovered t…
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 Homicide cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the trial court’s order of disposition adopting its prior order adjudicating appellants’ child, M.T.T., dependent, based on clear and convincing evidence of egregious prospective abuse. The trial court recommitted the child to the temporary custody of her paternal grandparents under the supervision of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and ordered HRS to initiate termination of parental rights proceedings. We affirm.
On the morning of January 28, 1992, M.T., appellants’ 2⅞⅞ year old daughter was pronounced dead some time after 4:00 a.m., upon arrival at Lake Shore Hospital. On February 4, 1992, 4 year old M.T.T. was removed from her parents’ custody because of the drug overdose death of her sister M.T. and her mother’s past mental history,1 and placed into protective custody by HRS.
An adjudicatory hearing was held on April 14, 1992, at which time the parents were represented by counsel.. Dr. Peter Lipkovic, the medical examiner, testified that he performed an autopsy on January 28, 1992. He determined that the child died from the ingestion of an egregious level of Fiorieet2 and a toxic level of diazepam (Valium).
According to Art Picklo, Criminal Investigator for the Columbia County Sheriff’s office, the parents told him that they picked the children up from a baby sitter at 5:10 p.m. on the night of January 27, 1992. The record gives no indication that the child was ill at that time. The parents reported that the child ate dinner at approximately 6:00 p.m. Picklo further testified that the parents claimed to have attempted to administer a prescribed antibiotic, Pediazole, at 9:30 p.m. This proved difficult as the child was fast asleep and would not wake up. At approximately 10:30 p.m. the parents checked on the child again. The husband again attempted to wake the child — in the words of Picklo he “slapped her” and “shook her in an attempt to wake her up,” but she would not wake up. The husband then checked the child’s eyes with a flashlight. The pupils reacted “slightly” to the light. The parents did not seek medical assistance until 4:00 a.m., although the mother wanted to call for help at 10:30 p.m., according to Picklo.
Picklo said that the parents could not offer any explanation of how the deceased child could have obtained the ingested drugs, but that the mother later admitted to stealing Valium from her place of employment. The mother then produced a bottle of Fioricet from her purse. The Fioricet was a medication prescribed for the mother. Picklo also stated that during the investigation, the father flushed medication down the toilet despite contrary instructions of law enforcement personnel.
Dr. Lipkovic testified that based on the undigested food in the stomach and level of drug overdose, if the child had dinner at 6:00 p.m. she would have been in a coma or dead by 10:00 p.m. Picklo testified that accidental exposure to the drugs was ruled out because the deceased infant did not have access to the child-proof bottle of Fioricet and the mother reported that the drugs had not been disturbed from their usual locations. The medical examiner opined that the child’s death was a homicide. Picklo stated that criminal charges had not been filed as of the date of the hearing.
On appeal, appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that appellants’ four year old daughter, M.T.T., was dependent based upon egregious prospective abuse. Although the present case involves an appeal from a dependency proceeding, even the termination of parental rights can be supported by a showing of prior abuse or neglect of other children. See Padgett v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565, 569 (Fla.1991). We find the trial court’s findings to be supported by the evidence. See In the Interest of D.J.S. and J.S.G., 563 So. 2d 655, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (on rehearing en banc) (trial court’s determination that evidence is clear and convincing will not be overturned unless it may be said as a matter of law that no one could reasonably find such evidence to be clear and convincing (citing 5A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1656(9), at 519)).
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur. ZEHMER, J., dissents with written opinion.
. According to Investigator Art Picklo the mother admitted to a past history of attempted suicide by drug overdose and by attempting to slash her wrists.
. The medical examiner found excessive levels of butalbital (a barbituate), acetaminophen or Tylenol, and caffeine. These are the ingredients of Fiorieet, and were found in such proportions as to lead the medical examiner to conclude that Fiorieet was ingested.
ZEHMER, Judge
(dissenting).
Because I construe the evidence and findings of the court to be consistent with the parents having unwittingly, albeit negligently, administered the Fioricet and Dia-zepam instead of the Pediazole prescribed for the deceased child, and there being no other evidence of abuse or neglect on the part of these parents toward either the deceased child or M.T.T., I do not agree that prospective abuse of the deceased child’s sister, M.T.T., was proven by clear and convincing evidence. Fur this reason, I dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Denson v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 661 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…posed to actual abuse. Further, a finding of dependency of a child may be based on proof of neglect or abuse of other children. See C.F. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991). However, the evidence in these cases must establish that the child is at “substantial risk” of suffering imminent abuse or neglect…
-
C.F. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…dependency of A.S.F. cannot be predicated upon proof of neglect or abuse of another child, A.S.F.’s sibling. See [*296] generally Padgett v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991), and In the Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We also reject C.F.’s argument that the trial court erred in making the finding of dependency as to him by clear and convincing evidence. See generally In the Interest of D.F., 622 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We also note t…
-
M.N. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 826 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…R., 763 So. 2d at 479 (footnote omitted) (citing Padgett v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1991); C.F. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In the Interest of M.T.T., 613 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). However, an incident of prior abuse or neglect of one child is insufficient by itself to establish a substantial risk of im [*448] minent abuse to another child. M.F. In M.F., the court eschewed a per se rule that would allow…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1991)
- IN the Interest OF D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)