STEVEN KELLER, APPELLANT,
v.
OLIN RAMSEYER O/B/O A.R. AND B.R., MINORS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed injunctions for protection against sexual violence where the trial court relied primarily on hearsay testimony about what alleged child victims told their father, lacking eyewitness testimony, affidavits, or direct physical evidence required under section 784.046(4)(a).
An injunction for protection against sexual violence cannot be granted based solely on hearsay testimony about what alleged victims told the plaintiff without eyewitness testimony, affidavits from eyewitnesses, or direct physical evidence of the alleged abuse.
[1] An injunction for protection against sexual violence under section 784.046(4)(a), Florida Statutes, requires eyewitness testimony, affidavits from eyewitnesses, or direct…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA stepfather challenged injunctions for protection against sexual violence filed by the biological father of two minor children. The children denied t…
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 Protection Against Sexual Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
In this consolidated appeal, Appellant (the stepfather of the alleged minor victims) challenges final judgments of injunction for protection against sexual violence filed by Appellee (the father of the alleged minor victims). Although the children denied the allegations during the videotaped interview with the Child Protection Team and there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged abuse, the trial judge granted the injunction primarily based on Appellee's testimony about what his children allegedly told him. Appellant's threshold claim of error relates to the admissibility of this testimony under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2017). We need not address this evidentiary issue here because we conclude that Appellant's other claim of error based on section 784.046(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), is dispositive. In this case, there were no eyewitnesses, affidavits from eyewitnesses, or direct physical evidence of the alleged abuse to support the allegations.
*469Accordingly, there was a lack of substantial, competent evidence to support the injunction. See T.B. v. R.B. (In re A.B.) , 186 So.3d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that mother failed to meet requirements of section 784.046(4)(a) for obtaining injunction against father where she was not eyewitness to alleged acts and failed to introduce physical evidence or affidavit from eyewitness to alleged acts). The final judgments are reversed.
REVERSED.
TORPY, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollins v. Rollins, 336 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…ng evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, and apropos here, the findings of the trial court in either granting or denying an injunction must be supported by competent, substantial evidence to be affirmed. See Keller v. Ramseyer, 237 So. 3d 468, 468–69 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“In this case, there were no eyewitnesses, affidavits from eyewitnesses, or direct physical evidence of the alleged abuse to support the allegations. Accordingly, there was a lack of substantial, competent evidence to su…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of A.B. v. R.B., 186 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)