CHARLES JAMES DURAND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Charles Durand was convicted of child neglect for his involvement in confining a twelve-year-old girl to a screened porch and locked box in his household. On appeal, Durand challenged whether he qualified as a 'caregiver' under Florida law, a necessary element of the neglect charge, but the court affirmed his conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to establish he was an adult household member responsible for the child's welfare.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence that Durand qualified as a 'caregiver' under Florida law. Given his position in the household and evidence of his involvement in the supervision and direction of the child, he fell within the statutory definition of 'caregiver' as 'a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child's welfare.'
[1] A person can be a "caregiver" for the purposes of child neglect statutes if they are an adult household member responsible for a child's welfare.
[2] Evidence of an adult's involvement in the supervision and direction of a child within a household can establish that the adult is a "caregiver."
Previewing 2 of 3 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 word 'caregiver' as it relates to child abuse, means 'a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a [child's] welfare.' § 827.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1999).”
Establishes the statutory definition of 'caregiver' that is broad enough to include Durand as an adult household member with supervisory involvement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim, A.H., age twelve, lived in Durand's residence along with her father and younger brother. A.H. was forced to sleep on a lounge chair on a s…
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 Child Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
The defendant below, Charles Durand [“Durand”], was charged by information with aggravated child abuse and neglect of a child. The-jury found him guilty of neglect of a child. § 827.03(3), Fla. Stat. (1999). He appeals, raising six issues. Only one merits discussion. Durand contends that there whs no evidence at trial that he was a “caregiver” to the victim, a necessary element of “neglect of a child.”
The victim, A.H., twelve years old at the time of trial, her father, Douglas Hardi-gree, and her younger brother, T.H., all moved into the Durand residence. For reasons in dispute at trial, A.H. was forced. for many months to spend the night on a lounge chair in the screened-i’n porch that surrounded the in-ground pool. Often, she was tied to the chair. A.H. testified that since she could not access the locked house, she had to relieve herself on the ground outside or in the chair. All of the adults, including Durand, at different times sent her to sleep outside.
If the weather was bad enough, A.H. was allowed to sleep indoors in a box built by Durand. She sometimes referred to it as the “coffin.” A.H. had to get in through an opening on top which was then covered with a screen and locked. A sheet was then placed over the box. A.H. could not get out of the box herself. Durand was one of the adults who would order A.H. to get into the box.
Durand contends that no evidence was presented to establish that he was a “caregiver” to A.H. The state responds that the sufficiency of the evidence on this point was not raised at the trial levél and is thus unpreserved.. Even if preserved, it appears the statute’s definition of “caregiver” is broad enough to include Durand. The word “caregiver” as it relates to child abuse, means “a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.” § 827.01(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). Given his position in the household and the evidence of his involvement in the supervision and direction of the child, we find no reversible error. See Leet v. State, 595 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see also Durand v. State, 815 So. 2d 756, (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). But c.f, Peterson v. State, 765 So. 2d 861, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nowlin, 50 So. 3d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given its “plain and obvious meaning.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984). The plain and obvious meaning of “caregiver” has been applied to neglect prosecutions under 827.03(3). Durand v. State, 820 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Id. “[B]ecause the phrase ‘other person responsible for a child’s welfare’ has a plain and obvious meaning in everyday parlance, there is no need to resort to the statutory definition given in section 39.01(47)....” Id. at 1080…
-
State v. Vonda Denise Christie, 939 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…biguous, the statute must be given its “plain and obvious meaning.” Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984). The plain and obvious meaning of “caregiver,” in 827.01(1), has been applied to neglect prosecutions under 827.03(3). Durand v. State, 820 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We further agree with the State that teachers stand in loco parentis to the students during school hours. A public school ... owes a general duty of supervision to the students placed within its care. Case law is replete with…
Authorities Cited
- Leet v. State, 595 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Peterson v. State, 765 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Durand v. State, 815 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)