R.C., FATHER OF R.C., J.G., P.G., S.G., ETC., 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.
In a dependency case involving five severely neglected children, the trial court admitted hearsay testimony about child abuse allegations against the father in a post-dispositional hearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that hearsay testimony is not competent evidence to support modification of a case plan under Florida law, despite statutory language permitting broader evidence in dispositional hearings.
Hearsay testimony is not competent evidence to support modification of a case plan. Although section 39.521 permits broader evidence in dispositional hearings, section 39.601(9)(f) requires that case plan amendments be based on competent evidence, and hearsay does not qualify as competent evidence.
[1] In dependency cases, "double hearsay" testimony from an investigator reporting statements made by a child who was told about abuse by other children is generally inadmiss…
[2] Statements made by a child to an investigator for the purpose of initiating a forensic investigation, even if medical treatment may follow, do not qualify for the medical…
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“any other relevant and material evidence, including other written or oral reports, may be received by the court in its effort to determine the action to be taken with regard to the child and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value, even though not competent in an adjudicatory hearing.”
Establishes the broader evidentiary standard in dispositional hearings under section 39.521
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a case plan was adopted for five severely neglected children, allegations emerged that two or more of the female children had been abused by the…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
The sole issue in this appeal is the admission of hearsay testimony of child abuse in a post-dispositional context in a dependency case.
Not long after the adoption of a case plan for both parents of five severely neglected children, information came to light that two or more of the female children had been abused by their father. A Child Protection Team [“CPT”] investigator interviewed the nineteen-year-old sibling of the five children who revealed that she personally had been abused by her father and that two of her sisters told her they had also been abused both by the father and the older brother. The Department of Children and Families [“DCF”] sought to suspend the father’s visitation and to modify the case plan to require a psycho-sexual evaluation of the father.
At the hearing, DCF relied on the testimony of the CPT investigator who interviewed the sister to support their motion.
The trial court refused to admit the “double hearsay” offered, i.e. the CPT investigator’s report of what the nineteen-year-old daughter had been told by the younger daughters. But the court did allow the CPT investigator to testify about what the nineteen-year-old had recounted had happened to her.
The trial court appeared to allow it as an exception to hearsay — as a statement made for purposes of medical diagnosis. It did this based upon the CPT investigator’s testimony that even though their investigations are “forensic,” when information comes to light about sexual abuse and it gives rise to the need for medical treatment, then medical treatment will follow. Obviously, this will not qualify for the medical diagnosis exception to the hearsay rule. See State v. Frazier, 753 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Ochoa, 576 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
DCF urges on appeal that the hearsay was admissible.
Section 39.521, Florida Statutes, dealing with disposition in dependency cases identifies many different kinds of evidence available, including the catch-all: “any other relevant and material evidence, including other written or oral reports, may be received by the court in its effort to determine the action to be taken with regard to the child and may be relied upon to the extent of.its probative value, even though not competent in an adjudicatory hearing.” On the other hand, section 39.601(9)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that the case .plan may be amended by the court “based on competent evidence demonstrating the need for the amendment.” Hearsay in this context is not competent. The witness will have to testify in support of DCF’s motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.R. v. Dep't of Child. & Families (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…one at issue in this case, to “competent evidence.” We further note that a reference in a now-repealed statute to “competent evidence” being required to amend a case plan has been interpreted to exclude hearsay. R.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 917 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Finally, and more specifically, a case plan is initially approved based upon facts established at the adjudicatory hearing upon which the order of dependency is based. Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.410(4) (approval of a case plan mu…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ochoa, 576 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Gonzalez v. State, 753 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)