Da v. Dcf
84 So. 3d 1136
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- DCF learned RA was left with a halfway house by parents who were in rehab and had mental health and substance abuse issues.
- Mother admitted cocaine use; father denied mental health/substance abuse problems but later admitted to substance abuse history.
- Father re-entered treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts on March 14, 2011.
- DCF sought shelter, then petitioned to declare RA dependent due to risk of prospective harm; mother consented to dependency adjudication.
- At trial, evidence showed father's untreated mental disorder and ongoing cocaine use; experts linked these to risk of harm to RA; court found substantial risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence of risk to RA? | Father argues evidence fails to show substantial risk. | DCF/Guardian contend evidence shows substantial risk from father's untreated issues. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports risk of imminent harm to RA. |
| May a supplemental dependency adjudication be based on prospective risk under §39.507(7)? | P.S. view requires actual harm for subsequent adjudication. | Statutory plain language allows supplementation based on prospective risk; not limited to actual harm. | Yes; Court rejects P.S. interpretation and affirms use of prospective risk to supplement. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 2000) (preponderance standard and mixed questions of law and fact)
- A.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 901 So.2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (review of dependency determinations under correct law)
- J.B. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 40 So.3d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (substance abuse as factor for risk of harm)
- B.C. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 846 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (substance abuse as basis for risk of harm)
- E.M.A. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (mental health disorder as basis for risk of harm)
- Richmond v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 658 So.2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (mental health disorder and risk to child)
- P.S. v. Department of Children and Families, 4 So.3d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (limit of subsequent adjudication to actual harm)
- D.G. v. Department of Children & Families, 80 So.3d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (factually distinguishable; not controlling on point)