S.L., FATHER OF A.P., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPT. 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 dependency order finding a father's son dependent based on spanking with a belt, holding that the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements mandating a detailed written statement of facts supporting the dependency finding.
The trial court's bare statement that the child was placed in a condition of dependency due to intentional acts resulting in temporary disfigurement was inadequate under Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330(g), which requires a written order specifying the facts upon which a dependency finding is based. The case is remanded for the trial court to provide the detailed factual findings necessary for appellate review.
[1] A trial court order adjudicating dependency must state the legal basis for the finding and specify the facts upon which the finding is based.
[2] A trial court must specify whether a dependency finding was made by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.
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“In all cases in which dependency is established, the court shall enter a written order stating the legal basis for a finding of dependency, specifying the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based, and stating whether the court made the finding by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.”
Statement of the procedural requirement from Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330(g) that the trial court violated
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA father spanked his son with a belt, resulting in what the trial court found to be temporary disfigurement. The trial court entered a dependency orde…
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
PLEUS, J.
The father challenges an order finding his son dependent as to him based on his having spanked his son with a belt. The trial court’s order adjudicating dependency contains the following: “The Court further finds the following brief statement of facts to be true: intentional acts resulting in temporary disfigurement has placed the child.” [sic].
The Department of Children and Families concedes that under the case law of this district, these findings were inadequate. L.B. v. Department of Children and Families, 766 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); K.S. v. Department of Children and Families, 760 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); M.E.G. v. Department of Children and Families, 754 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.330(g) states:
In all cases in which dependency is established, the court shall enter a written order stating the legal basis for a finding of dependency, specifying the facts upon which the finding of dependency is based, and stating whether the court made the finding by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence.
Setting forth the factual basis of the dependency finding is of particular importance in the instant case where the corporal punishment, a spanking, is authorized by law, but the spanking in question was alleged to have been administered in an excessively harsh or inappropriate manner. The determination of whether corporal punishment is excessive or abusive requires an evaluation which considers the age of the child, the prior history of injuries to the child, the location of the injury on the child, the multiplicity of the injury, and the type of trauma inflicted. It also must result in the types of injuries set forth by law, such as significant bruises or welts. § 39.01(30)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. (2000).
This court is aware of the delicate balance between the fundamental rights of parents to raise and discipline their children and the need to protect children from abuse. Most corporal punishment, even that which is not excessive, produces temporary marks of some kind. It is virtually impossible on appeal to evaluate the trial court’s decision that the corporal punishment was excessive when the trial court does not comply with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
We reverse the dependency order and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED; REMANDED.
SHARP, W., J., concurs.
ORFINGER, R.B., J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raford v. State, 828 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2002)…ne between permissi [*1021] ble corporal punishment and prohibited child abuse. See, e.g., McDonald, 785 So. 2d at 647; Corsen, 784 So. 2d at 536; Moakley v. State, 547 So. 2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); cf. S.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 787 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (recognizing in dependency case the “delicate balance between the fundamental rights of parents to raise and discipline their children and the need to protect children from abuse”). However, we conclude that this difficult t…
-
T.G. and W.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 927 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…it results in “[significant bruises or welts,” see section 39.01(30)(a)4.k., the courts of this state have consistently found that bruises are not necessarily indicative of excessive corporal discipline. Compare S.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 787 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“Most corporal punishment, even that which is not excessive, produces temporary marks of some kind.”) and J.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 773 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (finding father’s routine spanking of his o…
Authorities Cited
- M.E.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 754 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- L.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 766 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Fine v. State, 760 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- K.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 760 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)