R.S.M., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 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.
R.S.M. appeals an HRS order placing his name on the Central Child Abuse Registry for alleged excessive corporal punishment. The court reverses, holding that bruising alone, without competent and substantial evidence of excessive punishment as defined by statute, is insufficient to maintain the registry entry.
The court held that the mere presence of bruises resulting from corporal punishment is not competent, substantial evidence of excessive corporal punishment or temporary disfigurement as contemplated by the statute. Each case must be proved by competent, substantial evidence without resort to arbitrary presumptions such as the 24-hour bruise rule.
[1] The mere presence of bruises resulting from corporal punishment is not competent, substantial evidence of excessive corporal punishment or temporary disfigurement.
[2] The existence of excessive corporal punishment must be proved by competent, substantial evidence without resort to arbitrary presumptions fixed by the passage of time.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the existence of excessive corporal punishment must be proved in each case by competent, substantial evidence "without resort to arbitrary presumptions fixed by the passage of time."”
Establishes the legal standard that arbitrary time-based presumptions of abuse are impermissible and each case requires individualized proof.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.S.M.'s 14-year-old son called the HRS hotline alleging that R.S.M. had struck him with his fist and belt and thrown him against a wall, causing brui…
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 Excessive Corporal Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal, R.S.M. challenges the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) order that denied his request to expunge his name from the Central Child Abuse Registry. He argues that HRS failed to present competent, substantial evidence that R.S.M. inflicted excessive corporal punishment or temporary disfigurement. Following a careful review of the record, we conclude that R.S.M. is correct and reverse.
R.S.M. was entered into the Central Child Abuse Registry as a confirmed child abuser following an HRS investigation into the circumstances surrounding a call to the HRS hotline made by R.S.M.’s 14-year-old son. The son had called the hotline and reported that his father had abused him when he learned that the son had been suspended from school for not dressing for P.E. The son reported that R.S.M. had struck him with his fist and with a belt and had thrown him against the wall, causing bruises. He also reported that R.S.M. had verbally abused him.
Although the hearing officer’s findings comported in most respects with the son’s report, the final HRS order granted a number of R.S.M.’s exceptions, with the result that the only evidence remaining to support the finding of excessive corporal punishment was the presence of bruising, R.S.M.’s testimony that he used corporal punishment and the son’s testimony that the bruising was the result of the corporal punishment.
We observe first that the so-called 24-hour rule (any bruises lasting over 24 hours creates a presumption of abuse) has been specifically disapproved by this court. B.R. v. Dept. of HRS, 558 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We held there that the existence of excessive corporal punishment must be proved in each case by competent, substantial evidence “without resort to arbitrary presumptions fixed by the passage of time.” Id. at 1029. See also D.J. v. Dept. of HRS, 565 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In any event, the evidence here is, at the least, equivocal as to whether the bruises lasted as long as 24 hours. We conclude that under the facts present here, the mere presence of bruises resulting from corporal punishment is not competent, substantial evidence of the excessive corporal punishment or temporary disfigurement that the legislature envisioned in passing chapter 415. We find of particular importance the fact that: (1) There was evidence that the son called HRS in an attempt to be allowed to go live with his mother in another state; (2) HRS allowed the son to remain in the home and go on a family outing the next day; (3) at the hearing, the son recanted his earlier report that the corporal punishment had been abuse; and (4) the son, having gone to live with his mother following this incident, then returned to R.S.M.’s home and continued living there.
Having found that these facts do not support a finding of the type of excessive corporal punishment or temporary disfigurement that the statute was designed to address, we reverse the final HRS order with instructions to expunge R.S.M.’s name from the Central Child Abuse Registry.
HALL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.C. and S.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 773 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ant bruises or welts.” In this case, there was no evidence presented that the bruises were significant or that they constituted temporary disfigurement. Nor did the trial court find such. See R.S.M. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 640 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(mere [*1222] presence of bruises resulting from corporal punishment is not competent, substantial evidence of excessive corporal punishment or temporary disfigurement). Nor was there any evidence that the children were likely to…
-
O.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 821 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…for lying and skipping school was a single incident and not excessive enough to qualify as abuse, citing to J.C. v. Department of Children & Families, 773 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), and R.S.M. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 640 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), wherein the courts held that the corporal punishment inflicted upon the children was not excessive. In J.C., the father routinely spanked his oldest child with a belt for violating the father’s written list of rules. [*1148] On o…
-
A.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 908 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…that the fact that some bruising may occur as a result of corporal punishment does not, alone, constitute competent substantial evidence that the corporal punishment was excessive or abusive); R.S.M. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 640 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (same); see also J.C. (holding that where the father routinely spanked his oldest child with a belt for violating the father’s written list of rules, and on one occasion had caused a bruise on the child’s buttocks, the punis…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- B.R. and W.C. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 558 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- D.J. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 565 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)