IN THE INTEREST OF G.H. III, 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 addresses whether a trial court must relitigate dependency findings at a termination of parental rights hearing when the dependency adjudication was made under a clear and convincing evidence standard. The court held that while Rule 8.330 allows the state to rely on prior clear and convincing findings to avoid relitigation, parents retain the right to present evidence at the termination hearing that must be weighed against the prior abuse determination.
Rule 8.330 allows the state to rely on a prior clear and convincing evidence finding to avoid relitigation, but it does not preclude parents from presenting evidence at the termination hearing. The trial court must receive and consider any relevant evidence offered by the parents and weigh it against the prior determination of egregious abuse.
[1] A trial court may make a finding based on clear and convincing evidence in a dependency proceeding to avoid repetitive hearings in subsequent termination of parental righ…
[2] If a dependency petition alleges grounds for termination of parental rights and the trial court finds those grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence, the state is…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Rule 8.330 gives the trial court the option of finding that the State has proven an allegation of the petition for dependency by clear and convincing evidence. If the dependency petition alleges one or more of the grounds specified in section 39.464, relating to the termination of parental rights, and the trial court finds that this allegation has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, then the State shall not be required to relitigate an identical ground or grounds at a later termination proceeding.”
Establishes that Rule 8.330 allows the state to avoid relitigation of dependency findings made by clear and convincing evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS filed a dependency petition on January 31, 1992, alleging G.H. III suffered physical and sexual abuse. The trial court found extensive injuries in…
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 Egregious Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on rehearing pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330. The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion substituted for the original opinion.
On January 31, 1992, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) filed an amended petition for dependency, alleging that G.H. Ill suffered from ongoing physical abuse.1 After an adjudicatory hearing, the trial court found that G.H. Ill was suffering from first-degree burns from above his waist down to and including his feet; numerous bruises, some of which were on his testicles; patches of hair missing from his scalp; swollen and bleeding ears, lips, and face; a cut tongue; and scratch marks about his neck. Furthermore, the lower court found that Everett Bias, appellant’s paramour, sexually abused G.H. Ill by forcing the child to perform oral sex on him. The trial court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported a finding of egregious abuse pursuant to section 39.464(4), Florida Statutes, and adjudicated G.H. Ill to be dependent. The adjudication of dependency was not appealed.
On April 21, 1992, HRS filed a petition to terminate parental rights, alleging the iden tical facts previously pled and litigated on February 26, 1992. At the termination hearing, the trial court considered relevant evidence regarding the best interest of the child but refused to retry dependency issues previously litigated, i.e., whether G.H. Ill had been subjected to egregious abuse. On July 15, 1992, the trial court terminated parental rights.
Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330 states in pertinent part:
(a) Hearing by Judge. The adjudicatory hearing shall be conducted by the judge without a jury utilizing the rules of evidence. At this hearing the court shall determine whether the allegations of the dependency petition have been sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the court is of the opinion that the allegations are sustained by clear and convincing evidence, it may enter an order so stating.
The committee note to this rule states:
(a) This change gives the court the option of making a finding based on a higher burden of proof to eliminate the need for a repetitive hearing on the same evidence if a termination of parental rights petition is filed.
Rule 8.330 gives the trial court the option of finding that the State has proven an allegation of the petition for dependency by clear and convincing evidence. If the dependency petition alleges one or more of the grounds specified in section 39.464, relating to the termination of parental rights, and the trial court finds that this allegation has been proven by clear and convincing evidence, then the State shall not be required to relitigate an identical ground or grounds at a later termination proceeding. Thus, the purpose of the rule is to avoid the State having to present its witnesses and prove the allegation twice.
However, it is not the purpose of Rule 8.330 to preclude the parent or parents against whom a termination petition is filed from presenting evidence at the termination hearing. At an adjudicatory hearing for termination of parental rights, “[a] party may call any person, including a child, as a witness.” Fla.RJuv.P. 8.525. Therefore, we do not interpret Rule 8.330 as prohibiting introduction of evidence by the biological parents here. The trial court must receive and consider any relevant evidence offered by the parents and weigh it against the court’s previous determination of egregious child abuse. At that hearing, appellant may present any evidence relating to the factors alleged in the termination petition. The State may also offer evidence, or may rest on, the court’s prior determination.
Accordingly, rehearing is granted, and this case is remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a new adjudicatory hearing in accordance herewith.
ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . The petition for dependency is not part of the record on appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sears v. Sears, 617 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…urther proceedings consistent with Bowen. The trial judge is instructed to allow appellant to testify before making a determination of whether he willfully failed to comply with the court order on temporary support. Cf, In the Interest of G.H. III, 617 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). If the trial judge thereafter finds appellant in contempt of court, Bowen requires him to determine whether appellant has the present ability to purge himself before imposing incarceration as a sanction for the contempt. SMITH,…
-
In the Interest of D.F., 622 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…wing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel if the parent is not represented subsequent to the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights, ... (emphasis added). . We note our prior opinion in In the Interest of G.H. III, 617 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (on motion for rehearing), holding that although the state may rest on a finding of "egregious abuse” by clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parental rights, such does not preclude the parents from presenting…
-
R.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 724 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…pendency order was proved by clear and convincing evidence. See In the Interest of W.D.N., 443 So. 2d 493, 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); In the Interest of C.M.H., 413 So. 2d 418, 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The father relies on In the Interest of G.H. III, 617 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), but that case has no application here. In G.H., the dependency order found that the parents had committed egregious abuse on the child. See id. at 422-23. The Department filed a termination proceeding based on section 39.464(4),…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence