The DependencyDefense.com case law library
last updated October 15, 2007
HOW THIS WORKS:
The cases below are organized loosely around the normal progress
of a child dependency case in the State of Florida. When you
click on a link, it will download and open a .pdf file that you can
then save or print. This requires that you have a compatible .pdf
reader installed on your computer. If you do not have one, you can get one at this link for free.
DISCLAIMER: The cases below are selected by the editor of DependencyDefense.com. They are not complete, in the sense that this page is a snapshot of the body of law governing dependency cases and does not claim to list all relevant or applicable cases. They do not include all of the case law an attorney needs to effectively defend a parent. This list does not contain cases which are favorable to DCF; it is your responsibility to be aware of those. This list does not contain cases that might be interpreted to contradict the ones included. It is your responsibility to be aware of updated or conflicting case law. This list is not meant to replace the value of diligent research and the services of a competent attorney. This is simply an evolving guide to some of the principles at work in Florida dependency cases, and a possible starting point for completing your research. Are we clear?
DISCLAIMER: The cases below are selected by the editor of DependencyDefense.com. They are not complete, in the sense that this page is a snapshot of the body of law governing dependency cases and does not claim to list all relevant or applicable cases. They do not include all of the case law an attorney needs to effectively defend a parent. This list does not contain cases which are favorable to DCF; it is your responsibility to be aware of those. This list does not contain cases that might be interpreted to contradict the ones included. It is your responsibility to be aware of updated or conflicting case law. This list is not meant to replace the value of diligent research and the services of a competent attorney. This is simply an evolving guide to some of the principles at work in Florida dependency cases, and a possible starting point for completing your research. Are we clear?
Case Law Organized by Stage of a Dependency Case
Shelter Hearing
LMC v. DCF: Parents have a constitutional due process and a statutory right to be heard and to present evidence at shelter hearings.
A.M.T. v. DCF: Before a child is sheltered, the court must receive sworn testimony to establish probable cause. Evidence must meet statutory definitions. There is a very good discussion in this case of sufficiency of evidence for, respectively, abuse, abandonment, and neglect. There is also implied disapproval of using the restriction of supervised visitation in a punitive manner.
Arraignment
Adjudicatory Hearing
J.F. v. DCF 2: In a prospective abuse case, DCF must prove a nexus between the act of abuse and prospective abuse. The issue is whether future harmful behavior can be clearly and certainly predicted.
C.R. v. DCF: To establish a nexus between abuse of a child and prospective abuse of a sibling, competent evidence must be presented that some condition exists to make it highly probable that the parent will abuse another child in the future (or that the abusive behavior is beyond the parent's control and likely to continue). Also, to establish failure to protect, DCF must prove that the parent in question knew or should have known of the abuse by another parent.
L.C. v. DCF: In prospective failure to protect cases, two nexuses must be proved, with evidence of probable continued abuse by one parent and also competent evidence of of probable continuing failure to protect by the other parent. Also, this case contains an interesting discussion of an improper use of a stale domestic violence injunction affidavit at trial.
Disposition
D.A.B. et al v. DCF: Regarding child support, chapter 39 requires a disposition order to address child support in an out-of-home placement. Also, the court notes that dependency court is not necessarily equipped to address child support, both initially and on a continuous basis.
D.S. v. DCF: Amendment of a case plan must be by the court. An offending parent must be given a reasonable opportunity to complete a case plan even when there is a non-offending parent able to take custody.
B.C. v. DCF: In some contrast to D.S., above, this court is clear that if a non-offending parent, who can pass a home study, seeks custody at disposition and there is no evidence that the placement would endanger the child, the court is not permitted to make an independent judicial determination of the best interests of the child.
K.H. v. DCF: When a non-offending parent seeks custody of child at disposition, application of a best interests of the child standard is improper.
Judicial Review
R.C. v. DCF: Hearsay testimony of child abuse in a post-dispositional hearing in which DCF asks the court to amend the case plan is not competent evidence in that context.
Case Plan Compliance
J.F. v. DCF: A parent's admission of guilt or culpability in harm to a child is an impermissible requirement of a case plan. The case is also interesting for other reasons, notably the court's opinion of the effect of a parent's inability to complete a case plan for reasons beyond her control. See the follow-on case, also listed under adjudicatory hearing above.
Termination of Parental Rights
J.A. v. DCF: On least restrictive means and one-parent TPR: A TPR with the sole effect of severing one parent's contact with a child, but not bringing the child any closer to adoption, is not proper. Note that the facts in this case do not involve the exception to this holding, which is statutorily-defined egregious abuse.
Other Issues
Bailey v. HRS: Ordering a psychological evaluation requires good cause shown. Reading the main opinion with the concurrence creates solid argument for the need for an evidentiary hearing. Don't get blindsided by a casual or unexpected request for a psych eval.
Brown v. Feaver: Homelessness case. Although the parent didn't win this appeal, it is still a good ruling for other reasons. DCF can't deprive a parent of custody without abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and there are none of those when a homeless parent accepts offered services.
W.R. v. DCF: The Court cannot retain jurisdiction, after case plan compliance, reunification, and a six month period of reunification, without stating a cogent reason to do so.
DCF v. V.V.: Although dependency proceedings are civil, they bear many of the indicia of criminal trials, thus invocation of 5th Amendment rights cannot be taken as an admission of guilt or support an inference of guilt. This case also presents a concise definition of "clear and convincing evidence".
LMC v. DCF: Parents have a constitutional due process and a statutory right to be heard and to present evidence at shelter hearings.
A.M.T. v. DCF: Before a child is sheltered, the court must receive sworn testimony to establish probable cause. Evidence must meet statutory definitions. There is a very good discussion in this case of sufficiency of evidence for, respectively, abuse, abandonment, and neglect. There is also implied disapproval of using the restriction of supervised visitation in a punitive manner.
Arraignment
Adjudicatory Hearing
J.F. v. DCF 2: In a prospective abuse case, DCF must prove a nexus between the act of abuse and prospective abuse. The issue is whether future harmful behavior can be clearly and certainly predicted.
C.R. v. DCF: To establish a nexus between abuse of a child and prospective abuse of a sibling, competent evidence must be presented that some condition exists to make it highly probable that the parent will abuse another child in the future (or that the abusive behavior is beyond the parent's control and likely to continue). Also, to establish failure to protect, DCF must prove that the parent in question knew or should have known of the abuse by another parent.
L.C. v. DCF: In prospective failure to protect cases, two nexuses must be proved, with evidence of probable continued abuse by one parent and also competent evidence of of probable continuing failure to protect by the other parent. Also, this case contains an interesting discussion of an improper use of a stale domestic violence injunction affidavit at trial.
Disposition
D.A.B. et al v. DCF: Regarding child support, chapter 39 requires a disposition order to address child support in an out-of-home placement. Also, the court notes that dependency court is not necessarily equipped to address child support, both initially and on a continuous basis.
D.S. v. DCF: Amendment of a case plan must be by the court. An offending parent must be given a reasonable opportunity to complete a case plan even when there is a non-offending parent able to take custody.
B.C. v. DCF: In some contrast to D.S., above, this court is clear that if a non-offending parent, who can pass a home study, seeks custody at disposition and there is no evidence that the placement would endanger the child, the court is not permitted to make an independent judicial determination of the best interests of the child.
K.H. v. DCF: When a non-offending parent seeks custody of child at disposition, application of a best interests of the child standard is improper.
Judicial Review
R.C. v. DCF: Hearsay testimony of child abuse in a post-dispositional hearing in which DCF asks the court to amend the case plan is not competent evidence in that context.
Case Plan Compliance
J.F. v. DCF: A parent's admission of guilt or culpability in harm to a child is an impermissible requirement of a case plan. The case is also interesting for other reasons, notably the court's opinion of the effect of a parent's inability to complete a case plan for reasons beyond her control. See the follow-on case, also listed under adjudicatory hearing above.
Termination of Parental Rights
J.A. v. DCF: On least restrictive means and one-parent TPR: A TPR with the sole effect of severing one parent's contact with a child, but not bringing the child any closer to adoption, is not proper. Note that the facts in this case do not involve the exception to this holding, which is statutorily-defined egregious abuse.
Other Issues
Bailey v. HRS: Ordering a psychological evaluation requires good cause shown. Reading the main opinion with the concurrence creates solid argument for the need for an evidentiary hearing. Don't get blindsided by a casual or unexpected request for a psych eval.
Brown v. Feaver: Homelessness case. Although the parent didn't win this appeal, it is still a good ruling for other reasons. DCF can't deprive a parent of custody without abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and there are none of those when a homeless parent accepts offered services.
W.R. v. DCF: The Court cannot retain jurisdiction, after case plan compliance, reunification, and a six month period of reunification, without stating a cogent reason to do so.
DCF v. V.V.: Although dependency proceedings are civil, they bear many of the indicia of criminal trials, thus invocation of 5th Amendment rights cannot be taken as an admission of guilt or support an inference of guilt. This case also presents a concise definition of "clear and convincing evidence".
Special thanks to attorneys Kathy Durnell and Rhonda Parnell for contributing citations.