IN THE INTEREST OF A.C., J.C., J.C., AND L.C., CHILDREN. L.C., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY 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.
The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support dependency adjudications for the sons based on alleged risk of future harm, but affirmed the dependency adjudication for the daughter.
A father challenged dependency adjudications for his four children, based on an allegation of sexual abuse by the daughter. The dependency petition di…
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 Dependency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, L.C. challenges dependency adjudications of his four children, three sons and one daughter, based solely on his daughter’s allegation that he sexually abused her. There was insufficient evidence to support the boys’ dependency based on an alleged risk of future harm by the father. As the Florida Supreme Court held in In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1194 (Fla.2000):
A simple showing by DCF that a parent committed a sex act on one child does not by itself constitute proof that the parent poses a substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect to the child’s sibling, as required by the statute. While the commission of such an act may be highly relevant, it is not automatically dispositive of the issue of dependency. A court instead should focus on all the circumstances surrounding the petition in each case.
Here, the dependency petition did not allege, nor did the Department prove, any circumstances that placed the sons at risk. We therefore reverse the adjudication of dependency as to the three sons.
L.C. also challenges his daughter’s dependency, contending that evidence of her ulterior motive to fabricate renders the evidence insufficient. While we may have reservations about the truthfulness of the girl’s allegations, we cannot question the trial court’s assessment of her credibility because it was in a superior position to evaluate her testimony. Accordingly, we affirm the dependency adjudication of the daughter. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of E.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 884 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s for job placement after prison, she offered no documentary evidence corroborating these efforts. An appellate court cannot question the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. L.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. (In re A.C.), 848 So. 2d 433, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The Mother does not challenge the trial court’s findings regarding the children’s manifest best interests pursuant to section 39.810, and we find no basis to reverse. We have considered other matters raised by the Mother an…
-
In the Interest of G.C.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 863 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ex act on one child does not alone constitute proof that the parent poses a substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect to the child’s sibling. See In re M.F., 770 So. 2d 1189, 1194 (Fla.2000) (citing Padgett, 577 So. 2d 565). See also In re A.C., 848 So. 2d 433, 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing dependency adjudication of two sons based solely on Department’s showing that daughter’s allegation of father’s sexual abuse placed the sons at risk). We affirm, however, the termination of the mother’s parental r…1 / 2
-
Logreira v. Efrain Logreira, 322 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…position to observe and evaluate the witnesses, upon this record, the finding that compulsory participation in Family Bridges is in the best interests of the children cannot be sustained. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976); In re A.C., 848 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. Jones, 51 So. 3d 547, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); see also Delgado v. Silvarrey, 528 So. 2d 1358, 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (reversing a change in custody order where “[t]he trial court incorrectly regarded the father’s…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.F. and M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000)