In the Interest of A.B. v. R.B.
186 So. 3d 544
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- T.B. (Father) appeals a final protection against sexual violence injunction, alleging reversible error on three grounds.
- The Mother sought the injunction on behalf of A.B., fourteen, after an explicit video found on A.B.’s phone surfaced as the basis for disciplinary action.
- The trial court ordered a forensic interview of A.B. at a Children's Advocacy Center (CAC) with no participation by either parent, and the video was delivered to the court and viewed in camera.
- The Mother testified about A.B.’s statements, but had no personal knowledge or corroborating physical evidence, and the court relied on the video to grant the injunction.
- The Father and his witnesses testified to lack of abuse, but the court deemed their testimony insufficient; the court later relied on case law and, ultimately, granted an injunction based on A.B.’s statements captured in the video.
- The appellate court reversed in three respects: admissibility of the video, sufficiency of evidence, and due process concerns, directing vacatur of the injunction and a judgment for the Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the video under hearsay rules | Father argues video is inadmissible hearsay without proper reliability findings. | Mother contends video is admissible under section 90.803(23) as a child victim statement. | Video improperly admitted; not qualifying as admissible testimony under 90.803(23) given lack of reliability findings. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support injunction without proper video | Father contends there was no corroboration and no direct eyewitness/testimony. | Mother asserts sworn petition alone can support an injunction. | Injunction not supported by competent, substantial evidence when video excluded or inadmissible; due to statutory requirements). |
| Violation of due process by restricting access to video and cross-examination | Father asserts unjust deprivation of opportunity to view the video and cross-examine A.B. | Mother argues waiver or non-waiver considerations; claims process adequate. | Due process violated; Father denied viewing and cross-examining A.B. without proper reliability findings and formal procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monteiro v. Monteiro, 55 So.3d 686 (Fla.3d DCA 2011) (allowed in-camera interview contexts but not as substitute for proper testimony without a special master)
- Berthiaume v. B.S. ex rel. A.K., 85 So.3d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (sworn petition alone insufficient for injunction against nonparent; emphasis on proper evidentiary standards)
- Townsend v. State, 635 So.2d 949 (Fla. 1994) (necessity of corroboration and reliability in hearsay statements; safeguards against conviction on hearsay)
- Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1994) (reliability findings required for hearsay exceptions in child statements)
- McNulty ex rel. G.M. v. Douglas ex rel K.D., 111 So.3d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (full hearing with cross-examination required before permanent injunction)