A.R., MOTHER OF K.A.R. AND L.T.R., CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order adjudicating two children as dependent, finding insufficient evidence that the mother's alleged 'poor judgment' in leaving her youngest child with his biological father—who later killed the child—created a substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect to the two older children. The court also criticized an inexcusable 11-month delay in completing the dependency hearing.
The evidence was insufficient to support the dependency finding. The trial court did not find, and the Department failed to establish, that A.R. suffered from a mental or emotional condition allowing her children to be placed at substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect, which is required to adjudicate dependency based on the risk of future harm.
[1] A dependency finding requires evidence of abuse, abandonment, or neglect, not merely poor judgment or future risk.
[2] A parent cannot be found to have failed to protect a child from harm if there was no evidence the parent knew or should have known of the danger.
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“Because the record contains insufficient evidence to support the dependency finding, we reverse.”
Establishes the core holding that the evidence did not meet the statutory threshold for adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMother A.R. left her youngest child, Franklin, with his biological father Freddie Moore while she worked. Freddie Moore killed Franklin through shaken…
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 Abuse, Abandonment, Or Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A.R., mother of K.A.R. and L.T.R., appeals from an order adjudicating her two children dependent. Because the record contains insufficient evidence to support the dependency finding, we reverse.
The trial court did not find that K.A.R. or L.T.R. had been abused, abandoned or neglected. See § 39.01(14)(a), Fla.Stat. (1999).
Rather, the trial court’s finding is based upon the mother’s purported “poor judgment” in leaving her youngest child, Franklin, with Franklin’s natural father, Freddie Moore,1 while she was at work “and the risk that presents to her children in the future.” Baby Franklin died from shaken baby syndrome. A.R. immediately severed all ties with Freddie Moore. Freddie Moore has been criminally convicted in connection with the baby’s death. The Department concedes that no evidence was presented that A.R. knew or should have known that Freddie Moore constituted a danger to baby Franklin and that A.R. failed to protect Franklin. The Department was relegated to showing that K.A.R. and L.T.R. were at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment or neglect by the mother. See § 39.01(14)(f), Fla.Stat. (1999).
The court did not find, and the Department failed to establish, that A.R. suffers from a mental or emotional condition which allows her children to be placed at substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect. See Gaines v. Department of Children & Families, 711 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. dismissed, 728 So. 2d 747 (Fla.1999).
We are compelled to explicate a concern presented by this case even though our reversal is not predicated on the point.
The record reflects an inexcusable delay in completion of the dependency hearing.2 The hearing commenced on October 12, 1999 and was continued on four separate occasions until it was completed on September 7, 2000.
The record indicates no reason for this nearly 11-month delay other than scheduling considerations. A delay under these circumstances is indefensible given the fundamental nature of the interest involved. See B.B. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 731 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Lewis v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 670 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The legislature has indicated its desire that child dependency cases be handled expeditiously, see B.B., 731 So. 2d at 35, and the supreme court has enunciated time standards for adjudicatory hearings in dependency actions. See Fla.R.Jud.Ad-min. 2.085(d)(1)(E). By publication of this opinion, we hereby advise that delays such as those involved in this case will not be countenanced.
REVERSED.
COBB, PLEUS and PALMER, JJ., concur. . Freddie Moore is not the natural father of K.A.R. and L.T.R. . A.R. argues unreasonable delay in the commencement of the dependency hearing but review of the record reflects that much of this delay was occasioned by continuances obtained at the behest of the parents or by circumstances beyond the Department’s or the court’s control.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.L. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…purpose of showing the boyfriend’s alleged violent nature [*1002] or propensity is insufficient, by itself, to establish a prima facie case that N.L. knowingly failed to prevent her boyfriend’s abuse of S.W. See A.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 784 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (reversing dependency adjudications as to the siblings where a child died from “shaken baby syndrome” in the absence of evidence that the mother “knew or should have known that [the father] constituted a danger to [the] baby…
-
In the Interest of C.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 937 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…her teenage daughter from the stepfather’s sexual abuse when the daughter had informed the mother of the situation and the mother’s response was to suggest prayer, fasting, and locking the bedroom door. In A.R. v. Department of Children & Families, 784 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in which two children were adjudicated dependent as to their mother after the mother’s youngest child died of shaken baby syndrome at the hands of the child’s father while the mother was at work, the court reversed, stating: Th…
-
H.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 987 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…his paramour. See In re C.R., 937 So. 2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, DCF failed to present sufficient evidence that the father knew or should have known that his paramour was a threat to harm M.B.2 See A.R. v. Dep’t of Children '& Families, 784 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Furthermore, we reject the Guardian ad Litem’s suggestion that it was negligent for the father to leave M.B. with an 18-year-old caregiver where that caregiver had not graduated high school, had no first aid training, and lacke…
Authorities Cited
- Roshonda Keys Gaines v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 711 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Lewis v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 670 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- B.B. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 731 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Roshonda Keys Gaines, 728 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 1999)