In the Interest of B.Y.G.m, a Minor
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 10729
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Petitioner B.Y.G.M., a Salvadoran national, filed a private dependency petition at age 17 seeking a finding of abandonment/neglect by her father to support an SIJS immigration application.
- Father abandoned her as an infant (no contact, support, or visits); mother emigrated to the U.S. when petitioner was three and provided care from the U.S.; petitioner lived with grandparents in El Salvador until fleeing gang threats in 2014 and joining her mother in Florida.
- Trial court denied the petition under § 39.01(15)(e), finding petitioner not dependent because her mother (a legal custodian) was capable of providing supervision and care.
- On rehearing the department (DCF) appeared and challenged the petition; petitioner argued no temporal remoteness bar to abandonment and that dependency as to one parent is permitted.
- The trial court and this appellate court applied de novo review and held the father’s abandonment was too remote and caused no present harm or substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether father’s long-ago abandonment can support dependency | Father’s abandonment creates ongoing parental duty; no remoteness limit; dependency may be found as to one parent | Chapter 39 aims to secure current safety/custody, not to enforce past child-support defaults; no present risk here | Denied — abandonment too remote and did not create present harm or imminent risk |
| Whether dependency exists when a custodial parent can provide care | Dependency may be found as to the absent parent even if the other parent is present; petition seeks SIJS protection | A legal custodian (mother) provides supervision and care, so dependency not warranted | Denied — mother provides adequate care; no lack of capable legal custodian |
| Whether private dependency petitions filed to obtain SIJS should be treated differently | SIJS-aim justifies adjudication of dependency based on past abandonment | Courts should apply Chapter 39’s child-protection focus, not federal immigration aims | Denied — court will not declare dependency solely to facilitate immigration relief |
| Whether petitioner faces substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment, or neglect if returned | Returning to El Salvador would leave petitioner without protection/caregiver | No current substantial risk shown; petitioner safe with mother in Florida | Denied — no evidence of substantial imminent risk supporting dependency |
Key Cases Cited
- C.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 53 So.3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (de novo review of dependency adjudication)
- G.C. & D.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 791 So.2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (standards for appellate review of dependency findings)
- In re K.V., 939 So.2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (past events too remote to support dependency)
- B.C. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 846 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (harmful parental conduct must be a present threat to support dependency)
- In re Y.V., 160 So.3d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (private SIJS-seeking petitions and prima facie dependency findings)
- Yeboah v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 345 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2003) (federal guidance on SIJS statutory scope)
- M.B. v. Quarantillo, 301 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (Congress’ intent to narrow SIJS beneficiaries)