C.M. AND L.M., PARENTS OF A.M., A CHILD, APPELLANTS,
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.
Parents appealed a trial court's adjudication of dependency finding both mother and father liable for child abuse. The appellate court affirmed the dependency finding as to the mother based on inconsistent testimony and expert evidence of injuries, but reversed as to the father due to complete absence of evidence connecting him to the child's injuries.
The adjudication of dependency as to the mother was affirmed because her inconsistent testimony and Dr. Kessler's expert testimony about the nature of the injuries met the statutory definition of abuse. The adjudication of dependency as to the father was reversed because there was no evidence connecting him to the child's injuries, no evidence he was present during the abuse, and no evidence he knew of or would enable future abuse.
[1] Inconsistent testimony and expert testimony regarding the nature of a child's injuries can be sufficient to meet the statutory definition of abuse for an adjudication of…
[2] An adjudication of dependency must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“After diligently searching the record, we find not one scintilla of evidence connecting the father to the child's injuries.”
Establishes the complete absence of evidence against the father, forming the basis for reversal of his dependency adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child sustained injuries that Dr. Kessler testified were consistent with abuse. The mother and father were living apart at the time. The mother was …
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.
We affirm the trial court’s adjudication of dependency as to the mother. Her inconsistent testimony and the testimony of Dr. Kessler about the nature of the injuries to the child were sufficient to meet the statutory definition of abuse. See § 39.01(2), Fla. Stat.; see also In Interest of D.J.S., 563 So. 2d 655, 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (affirming dependency order where child sustained beating, resulting in nine separate bruises to the face). However, we must reverse the trial court’s adjudication of dependency as to the father. After diligently searching the record, we find not one scintilla of evidence connecting the father to the child’s injuries.
A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla.2000). This court has stated:
As to the issue of sufficiency of evidence, the standard of review is whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See In re D.J.W., 764 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Competent, substantial evidence has been defined as “such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can reasonably be inferred....” Duval Utility Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 380 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 1980). Webster’s defines “substantial” in terms of “solid” and “considerable.” WEBSTER’S NEW AMERICAN DICTIONARY 997 (Deluxe ed.1966).
G.C. v. Department of Children and Families, 791 So. 2d 17, 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Here there is absolutely no evidence that the father abused the child, or that he was present when the child was abused, or that he knew the child was being abused or would be abused in the future. Further, the unrefuted evidence is that the father was not with the mother when the child was injured. The mother testified that she and the father were living apart at the time of the incident and that she was the sole caretaker of the child. The father, when interviewed, stated the mother and child were visiting him and had stayed the night when the injury occurred. He stated the injury occurred at 6:00 in the morning while he was asleep. The state candidly concedes that there was no direct evidence' against the father. They argue, in effect, guilt by association, but this cannot be the basis of an adjudication of dependency. An adjudication of dependency must be based upon a finding of abuse, abandonment or neglect. W.T. v. Department of Children and Families, 787 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Gelrod v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 648 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); § 39.01(14)(a), Fla. Stat. The state offers no alternative theory to support' the finding of dependency as to the father nor can we ascertain one from the record. Even the trial court found the child was dependent “by a mere shard of testimony.”1 That may be so as to the mother, but not as to the father. The trial court abused its discretion by finding dependency as to the father because the finding of dependency cannot be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Absent support, the trial court’s findings must be reversed. W.T. v. Department of Children and Families, 787 So. 2d at 185.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA and PLEUS, JJ., concur. • .
. Although the trial judge used this language in a colloquy, the order of adjudication and findings of fact found that “The Department has proven its case of dependency by a preponderance of the evidence.” See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.330(a).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Roberts, 938 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…786 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review denied, 807 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2002). . Duval Utility Co. v. Florida Public Serv. Comm'n, 380 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980) (quoting De Groot, 95 So. 2d at 916); see also C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 823 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (same); K.E.A. v. State, 802 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (same); State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Porter, 791 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("Given our narrow scope of review, it is beside the poi…
-
F.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 826 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…5) and the father moved to consolidate the appeals. The motion to consolidate was denied because this appeal was perfected and ready for assignment to a decision panel, while the mother’s case was not. . C.M. v. Department of Children and Families, 823 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); V.G. v. Department of Children and Families, 813 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); G.C. v. Department of Children and Families, 791 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), mand. denied, 807 So. 2d 653 (Fla.2002). . Department of Children…
-
Croix Michael Carter v. State, 120 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…9 So. 3d 814, 817 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). “Competent, substantial evidence has been defined as ‘such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can reasonably be inferred.’” C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 823 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quoting Duval Util. Co. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 380 So. 2d 1028, [*209] 1031 (Fla.1980)). Substantial evidence must be something more than a “mere iota or scintilla,” must have real probative value, and must be “real, ma…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.F. and M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000)
- IN the Interest OF D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Duval Util. Co. v. The Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 380 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1980)
- G.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 791 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Gourley v. State, 787 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Murray v. State, 764 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- In the Interest of D.J.W. v. State, 764 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Domingo Benitez v. State, 648 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Gelrod v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 648 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)