S.H., THE FATHER, 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.
Father appealed a dependency adjudication based on allegations of neglect stemming from his financial inability to provide stable housing and employment. The court reversed, holding that poverty-based neglect findings are prohibited under Florida law unless the Department of Children and Families first offered services that were rejected by the parent.
The court held that an adjudication of neglect based solely on a parent's financial inability to provide necessities is prohibited under Florida law unless the Department first offers services to the parent and those services are rejected. Because the evidence showed the father's circumstances were caused primarily by financial inability and no services were offered or rejected, the adjudication of dependency cannot stand.
[1] A child is neglected when deprived of necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, or permitted to live in an environment causing significant impairment to ph…
[2] Financial inability to provide necessities does not constitute neglect if services for relief have been offered and rejected by the person.
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 foregoing circumstances shall not be considered neglect if caused primarily by financial inability unless actual services for relief have been offered to and rejected by such person”
Establishes the statutory exception to neglect findings when poverty is the cause, requiring that services be offered and rejected
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state alleged the father's two minor children were neglected or at substantial risk of imminent neglect based on the father's unstable housing and…
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 Burden Of Proof By Preponderance Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
S.H., the father, appeals the final order adjudicating his two minor children dependent and asserts there was no competent substantial evidence to support the adjudication. Because we find that the evidence was insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were neglected or in substantial risk of imminent neglect, we reverse.
The state based its allegations of neglect and imminent risk of neglect on the father’s unstable housing and employment, and the father’s inability to provide the minor children with basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Under Florida law a child is neglected when it is either deprived of “necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment,” or “permitted to live in an environment when such deprivation or environment causes the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired.” See § 39.01(43), Fla. Stat. (2005). However, “the foregoing circumstances shall not be considered neglect if caused primarily by financial inability unless actual services for relief have been offered to and rejected by such person.” Id.
The lower court’s adjudication of dependency is centered on the father’s financial inability to provide for his children. At most, the record establishes that the father could not afford stable housing and did not have steady employment. While these circumstances may serve as grounds for an adjudication of dependency, in the instant case they cannot, because the evidence at bar does not disclose any offer of services which were rejected by the father. See Brown v. Feaver, 726 So. 2d 322, 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“[H]omelessness, derived solely from a custodian’s financial inability, does not constitute abuse, neglect, or abandonment unless the Department offers services to the homeless custodian and those services are rejected”). Because the evidence establishes that the father’s circumstances were “caused primarily by financial inability,” and the children were not willfully deprived of food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment, section 39.01(43) forbids a finding of neglect. Therefore, we reverse the lower court’s order adjudicating the minor children dependent. See K.H. v. State Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 527 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 41 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of K.H. v. State, 527 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Rivera v. State, 726 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)