E.N. v. Department of Children & Families
224 So. 3d 900
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child I.N. lived primarily with Mother; Father had shared custody until January 2015 when I.N. was sheltered after allegations that Father sexually abused other children who lived in his home (referred to by I.N. as siblings).
- Father consented to dependency, completed most case-plan tasks (behavioral/psychological assessments, substance screens, parenting classes), but declined a psychosexual evaluation and initially declined questions about alleged abuse while criminal charges were pending; he later pled no contest to two counts of child neglect (other sexual charges were nolle prossed).
- I.N.'s treating psychologist, Dr. Frazier, testified that I.N. exhibited PTSD and credible disclosures that she was personally subjected to sexually inappropriate conduct (e.g., being washed "inside and out," naked cuddling, observing/experiencing showering incidents); symptoms improved when contact ceased and worsened after visits.
- GAL, case manager, and the Mother all recommended against reunification absent a psychosexual evaluation; the dependency court nevertheless entered an order appointing a reunification therapist and directing parties to follow the therapist's reunification plan.
- Mother filed a petition for writ of certiorari; the Second District quashed the dependency court's reunification order, finding the order departed from essential requirements of law and caused irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Department/GAL/Father's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dependency court properly granted reunification without written findings that reunification would not endanger the child and was in the child's best interest | Court failed to apply §39.522(3) and §39.621(10) by not expressly finding no endangerment and that reunification is in child's best interest | Court relied on completion of case-plan tasks and appointment of reunification therapist as sufficient to begin reunification | Court held reunification order departed from essential requirements because it did not make required findings on endangerment/best interest and lacked competent substantial evidence |
| Whether the Father had "substantially complied" with the case plan such that reunification was appropriate | Completion of listed tasks equaled substantial compliance resolving circumstances that caused dependency | Father argued task completion showed benefit from services and supported reunification | Court held the court misapplied "substantial compliance": task completion alone did not show remediation of the conduct that caused removal (sexual allegations); no competent substantial evidence supported resolution of those circumstances |
| Whether the court properly discounted expert testimony that I.N. was a victim of sexual abuse and the GAL/custodian recommendations opposing reunification | Mother and GAL relied on Dr. Frazier's credible testimony that I.N. suffered PTSD from Father's conduct and thus reunification would be harmful | Court treated the conduct as "inappropriate sexual behavior" (not sexual abuse), discounted sibling relationship and relied on absence of criminal finding of sexual abuse | Court held the dependency court misconstrued statutory definitions and evidence; Dr. Frazier's testimony met statutory definition of victim/sexual abuse and supported finding reunification would be harmful |
| Whether appointing a reunification therapist and directing parties to follow the therapist's directives was lawful without resolving statutory issues (psychosexual evaluation, Keeping Children Safe Act presumption) | Mother argued appointing therapist and starting reunification improperly granted reunification and ignored pending psychosexual evaluation and statutory rebuttable presumption of detriment (Keeping Children Safe Act) | Court proceeded to begin reunification via therapist, expressing concern that denying reunification without an alternative would be de facto termination of parental rights | Court held starting reunification in that manner departed from law because the court failed to consider applicable statutes (including presumption under Keeping Children Safe Act) and pending case-plan amendment; order was quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- A.A. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 147 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (orders granting reunification must include written findings addressing best-interest factors)
- Dep't of Children & Families v. W.H., 109 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (certiorari review limited to departures from essential requirements causing irreparable harm)
- J.C. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 83 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (orders that effectively alter placement without proper findings cause irreparable injury)
- M.N. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 120 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (reunification orders must be supported by competent substantial evidence)
- Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Dep't of Children & Families, 143 So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quashing reunification order where court failed to make best-interest findings)
- G.V. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 985 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (trial court findings on risks to child's safety or mental health must be based on objectively reasonable grounds)