Guardian Ad Litem Program v. C.H.
204 So. 3d 122
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Infant Le.H., two months old, was taken to the ER in Nov. 2015; x-rays showed multiple rib fractures in different locations and at different stages of healing.
- Parents denied causing the injuries; CPT physician testified fractures occurred on multiple occasions and were indicative of physical abuse; no medical explanation existed.
- DCF filed dependency petitions for Le.H., his twin La.H., and sister J.H.; trial court adjudicated Le.H. dependent but denied dependency for La.H. and J.H., finding no imminent risk.
- GAL appealed; this court previously quashed a shelter order that failed to remove La.H. and J.H., finding siblings similarly situated and at risk.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, law enforcement and child-welfare professionals testified that only parents and maternal grandmother cared for the children and that concerns for all three children remained.
- The Second District affirmed Le.H.'s dependency but reversed the denial as to La.H. and J.H., finding competent substantial evidence of a nexus between Le.H.'s unexplained abuse and substantial risk to his siblings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La.H. and J.H. were at substantial risk of imminent harm based on Le.H.'s unexplained, severe rib fractures | GAL/DCF: The unexplained, repeated rib fractures to Le.H. create a nexus showing substantial risk to identically situated siblings; removal/adjudication is warranted | Parents: Siblings have not been injured; no evidence they face imminent harm; insufficient proof to adjudicate them dependent | Court: Reversed trial court as to La.H. and J.H.; competent substantial evidence shows a substantial risk to siblings and they must be adjudicated dependent |
| Standard for linking one child's unexplained abuse to risk to siblings (nexus and totality of circumstances) | GAL/DCF: Court should consider age, vulnerability, proximity, and unexplained nature of injuries to infer risk to siblings | Parents: Adjudication cannot rest solely on injuries to another child without more specific proof | Court: Cited precedent (K.D., others) — courts examine totality and may infer substantial risk to siblings when one child's unexplained abuse and family circumstances support a nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- N.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 192 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quashing shelter order that failed to remove siblings similarly situated to an abused child)
- Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. K.D., 88 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (siblings identically situated to an injured twin may be removed/terminated when unexplained injuries indicate risk)
- S.T. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 87 So. 3d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (standard of review for dependency adjudication: mixed question; uphold findings supported by competent, substantial evidence)
- F.S.G. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 825 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (test for predicting future harm: whether future behavior will adversely affect the child and can be clearly predicted)
- R.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000) (dependency adjudication must consider totality of circumstances; cannot rely solely on isolated misconduct)
- H.B. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 971 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (recognizing removal/adjudication may be proper for siblings of abused children under certain circumstances)