MERCURY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA
v.
CATHERINE THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Fla. 5th DCA | 2023-12-15
No. 23-1537
338 So. 3d 1119 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.


Holding

DCF presented prima facie evidence of prospective abuse where the mother engaged in extensive, chronic substance abuse without prescriptions, failed to cooperate with investigation, and lived in unsafe conditions, thus meeting the statutory definition under Florida Statutes § 39.01(34)(g)2.


Headnotes

[1] Prima facie evidence of prospective abuse supporting dependency may be established by uncontroverted evidence of a parent's chronic, unprescribed substance abuse, documen…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“extensive, abusive, and chronic use of a controlled substance or alcohol by a parent to the extent that the parent's ability to provide supervision and care for the child has been or is likely to be severely compromised”

Court's description of the statutory standard met by DCF's evidence under § 39.01(34)(g)2., Fla. Stat. (2022)

Facts & Procedural History

A mother with a history of DCF involvement was found living in unsanitary conditions, avoiding DCF investigator contact, and admitting to chronic self…

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.


Opinion of the Court

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1537 LT Case No. 2022-DP-1496 _____________________________

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Appellants,

v.

R.V. a/k/a R.N., Mother of B.N., a Child,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. Lawrence V. Johnston, Senior Judge.

Kelley Schaeffer, of Children’s Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Bradenton, for Appellant.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, of Guardian ad Litem, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

No Appearance for Appellee.

October 19, 2023

WALLIS, J.

In this dependency case, the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) and the Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office timely appeal an order granting the mother’s ore tenus motion for judgment of dismissal made at the close of DCF’s case. We reverse.

After a thorough review of the adjudicatory hearing transcript, we agree with the appellants that DCF presented prima facie evidence of prospective abuse under sections 39.01(2), 39.01(34)(g)2., and 39.507(7), Florida Statutes (2022). The uncontroverted evidence presented by DCF showed the following. This is the second time DCF has taken custody of this child (“the child”) in her first three years of life. The DCF investigator first encountered the child staying with her paternal grandmother in a home that smelled of marijuana and contained paraphernalia accessible to the child. In fact, the child handed the investigator a “vape” pen containing a brown liquid.

After seven weeks of unsuccessfully attempting in-person contact with the mother, the investigator contacted her and the child at the child’s maternal grandfather’s home, which was cluttered and smelled of animal feces. The mother admitted avoiding the investigator because she did not want to submit to “unnecessary” services to protect the child. The mother also denied using any illicit substances.

However, while the child was in the mother’s care, the mother submitted to a drug test, which revealed positive results for fentanyl, marijuana, buprenorphine, and benzodiazepine. The mother admitted using these substances (except fentanyl), along with Xanax, Suboxone, Tylenol 3, and Tramadol. She further admitted using these substances without prescriptions, and over prescribed limits, to self-medicate for diagnosed panic attacks and anxiety, instead of taking properly prescribed and dosed medications under the care of a psychiatrist. Due to the mother’s current drug abuse, past history, avoidance of and refusal to cooperate with DCF’s investigation, and mental health issues, the investigator took custody of the child because she did not believe the young child was safe in the mother’s care.

We believe this was prima facie evidence of “extensive, abusive, and chronic use of a controlled substance or alcohol by a parent to the extent that the parent's ability to provide supervision

and care for the child has been or is likely to be severely compromised.” § 39.01(34)(g)2., Fla. Stat. (2022). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal order and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing as to the mother. See In re A.B., 952 So. 2d 571, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing order dismissing dependency petition as to child’s father because DCF presented prima facie case of dependency; remanding for new adjudicatory hearing in part because it was unclear whether trial court dismissed case as a matter of law or after a weighing of the evidence).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

EISNAUGLE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mercury Indem. Co. of Am. v. Thomas, 338 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
  • Send Enters., LLC v. Set Drive, LLC, 48 Fla. L. Weekly S69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …e that the trial court may not modify a non-final order on appeal without leave of the appellate court. See Exclusive Motoring Worldwide, Inc. v. Soral Invs., Inc., 349 So. 3d 490, 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 338 So. 3d 1119, 1121–22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Soles v. Soles, 536 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). We therefore conclude a litigant must still timely file their notice of appeal but, if necessary, may ask this Court to relinquish jurisdiction for the trial cou…
  • Exclusive Motoring Worldwide, Inc. v. Soral Invs., Inc., 349 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
    …Landlord in an appendix filed with this Court, the order is not before us because it was entered after the order on appeal and therefore cannot be a basis to avoid our review of the order on appeal. See Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 338 So. 3d 1119, 1121–22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“[T]he insureds argue that this appeal is moot because, after the appeal was taken of the non-final order, the trial court amended the order of appraisal. That amended order is not before us, but both parties have r…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw