RICHARD HECK, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
IN THE INTEREST OF M.H., A JUVENILE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 affirmed the trial court's adjudication that the father abused two children, finding substantial competent evidence of abuse under Florida law and rejecting the father's challenge to hearsay evidence admitted pursuant to his own pretrial stipulation.
A father's adjudication as an abuser of his children is affirmed where substantial competent evidence establishes abuse under Florida Statutes § 89.01(2) and the father is bound by his pretrial stipulation allowing admission of child hearsay statements.
[1] A party is bound by a pretrial stipulation regarding the admission of evidence and cannot challenge the admission of evidence to which the party has stipulated absent goo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Heck, Jr. was found to have abused two children, M.H. and R.H. The trial court admitted videotaped hearsay statements from the children pursua…
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 Pretrial Stipulation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After a thorough examination of the record, we find that there is substantial competent evidence to establish that the fa ther, Richard Heck, Jr., abused M.H. and R.H., as that term is defined in section 89.-01(2), Florida Statutes (1991). See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Paquin v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 561 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Moreover, the father cannot now complain about the introduction of the child hearsay statements in the videotapes where the father entered into a pretrial stipulation in which he agreed to allow the children’s hearsay statements contained in the videotapes to be admitted during the trial. See Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1971) (An appropriate stipulation is binding upon parties and court.); City Laundry & Linen Supply v. Coster, 465 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (Parties are bound by pretrial stipulation absent good cause for modification.).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order adjudicating M.H. and R.H. dependent as to their father is hereby affirmed. See Hardy v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Castellanos v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 545 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); In the Interest of C.G., 506 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. The Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1971)
- Paquin v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 561 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Castellanos v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 545 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Garrison v. State, 568 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Lenorris Hardy v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 568 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Coward v. State, 465 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- In the Interest of C.G. v. State, 506 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)