84 So. 3d 1136
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- DCF became involved March 2011 after parents entered a residential program and left R.A. with a halfway house; the address given for the parents was vacant.
- Mother admitted cocaine use; father denied abuse but later admitted long-term substance use and mental health issues.
- Father admitted to bipolar disorder and cocaine dependence; he did not take prescribed medication.
- Father sought treatment for depression and suicidal ideations in March 2011.
- DCF petitioned to declare R.A. dependent due to risk of imminent harm; mother consented to dependency; father contested.
- Trial court found by a preponderance that the father's untreated problems posed substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of risk to support dependency | D.A. argues evidence was insufficient | DCF contends substantial evidence showed risk | Yes, sufficient evidence supported risk of harm |
| Whether supplemental adjudication for the second parent was proper under §39.507(7) | D.A. argues after first adjudication, second adjudication requires actual harm | DCF contends prospective risk suffices under statute | Yes, supplemental adjudication valid based on prospective risk |
| Whether DCF confession of error should be entertained | D.A. challenges Fifth District’s reasoning in P.S. | GAL agrees with supplemental approach; DCF admits error | Court rejected confession of error and affirmed supplemental dependency findings |
Key Cases Cited
- M.F. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2000) (dependency standard requires preponderance of evidence)
- A.B. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 901 So.2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (mixed question of law and fact on dependency review)
- J.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 40 So.3d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (prospective risk may support dependency)
- B.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 846 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (substance abuse as basis for risk)
- E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (mental health disorder as basis for risk)
- Richmond v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 658 So.2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (mental health disorder as basis for risk)
- P.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 4 So.3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (disputed after initial dependency; conflict on post-adjudication standard)
- D.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 80 So.3d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (distinguishes P.S. on dependency procedure)