B.J. v. Department of Children & Families, 190 So. 3d 191

Background

Infant sibling (4 months) died; medical examiner ruled sudden unexplained infant death (SIDS) with co-sleeping as a possible factor.
Parents were staying in a cluttered hotel room; next day both parents tested (mother positive for cannabis), and parents later moved to Dade County.
Broward CPI attempted follow-up about the infant's death; after unsuccessful contact, CPI filed a missing-person/pick-up request for the surviving child A.G.; Miami‑Dade CPI removed A.G. about seven weeks later and placed her with maternal grandmother.
At removal and shelter hearing A.G. was observed to be clean, well‑groomed, healthy, and not harmed; parents admitted occasional marijuana use and that mother continued to co‑sleep with A.G.
Trial court found dependency based on the totality of circumstances (dirty hotel room, parents leaving A.G. asleep while they went out, alleged evasiveness toward investigation, and continued co‑sleeping), concluding prospective risk of neglect and ordering placement and reunification services.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother/B.J.)	Defendant's Argument (DCF)	Held
Whether adjudication of dependency is supported by competent substantial evidence	There is no competent substantial evidence of past, present, or imminent harm or neglect to A.G.; totality is speculative	Totality (sibling death with co‑sleeping factor, cluttered conditions, parents’ cannabis use, evasiveness) shows prospective/imminent risk of neglect	Reversed — no competent substantial evidence to support dependency adjudication
Whether sibling’s death constitutes "harm" to A.G. under §39.01(30)(k)	Sibling’s death was ruled SIDS; no evidence it resulted from abuse/neglect attributable to parents	Death plus co‑sleeping as possible factor supports concern about risk to surviving child	Reversed — no evidence death was caused by abuse/neglect; cannot be imputed as "harm" to A.G.
Whether co‑sleeping by mother created imminent risk to nearly 3‑year‑old A.G.	No evidence co‑sleeping posed imminent risk to a nearly three‑year‑old; nexus between infant’s death and risk to A.G. is speculative	Continued co‑sleeping after sibling’s death shows likely future neglect/harm	Reversed — no competent evidence of imminent risk from co‑sleeping to A.G.
Whether parental evasiveness and drug use justify removal	Missed contacts and single positive cannabis test do not show willful evasion, chronic/severe substance abuse, or impairment of child	Failure to timely respond, prior history, and positive drug test support concern for safety	Reversed — factual record shows alternative explanations for missed contacts; cannabis use not shown to be chronic/severe or to adversely affect A.G.

Key Cases Cited

M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000) (standard for proving dependency and appellate review)
D.A. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 84 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (review of dependency adjudication)
B.C. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 846 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (parental conduct must be a present threat)
B.D. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 797 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (imminency requirement for prospective neglect)
In re J.L., 824 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (Department must prove imminency for prospective harm)
E.M.A. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 795 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (discussion of ‘‘prospective’’ vs. ‘‘imminent’’ risk)
J.B.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 870 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (immediacy requirement reiterated)
T.G. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 927 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (single drug‑test failure insufficient for dependency)
C.W. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 944 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (necessity of nexus between sibling abuse and risk to child)
J.C. v. Florida Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 937 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (prospective danger must satisfy imminency requirement)