In the Interest Of: B.R.C.M., 182 So. 3d 749

Background

Unaccompanied minor B.R.C.M. petitioned for dependency under Florida Chapter 39 to pursue Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).
B.R.C.M. was born in Guatemala, abandoned by both parents, and placed with a godmother in Miami after crossing the border.”
The petition alleged abandonment/neglect by his parents and sought a “best interests” order, not Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) services.
Trial court denied the petition summarily, relying on prior cases and without evidentiary findings.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the godmother could be considered an “other person responsible for a child’s welfare” for abandonment purposes only where supported by the statute’s broader scope; it rejected the petition as not meeting dependency criteria, and noted DCF’s evolving involvement in such petitions.
Dissent urged individualized adjudication with findings and findings as to each parent, and suggested certification of issue to the Florida Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a godmother falls within dependency statute as caregiver under 39.01(15).	B.R.C.M. shows abandonment/neglect by parents; godmother should count as caregiver under 39.01(47) (broadly including ‘other person’).	Godmother is not a legal custodian or parent; 39.01(15) only contemplates traditional caregivers.	No; petition denied as godmother not within statutory caregiver definition given the statute’s structure and purpose.
Whether summary denial without evidentiary findings is appropriate in immigrant SIJ petitions.	Individualized adjudication is required; prior decisions recognize dependency petitions may proceed with factual findings.	History of summary denials in similar cases supports denial without extensive proceedings.	Affirmed; summary denial upheld; court rejected need for individualized evidentiary findings.
Whether the court should consider SIJS context and permit DCF/placement considerations to remain separate from dependency findings.	State should adjudicate dependency with an eye toward SIJS while preserving child welfare findings.	Separation is possible; immigration decisions are federal; court should not adjudicate beyond state dependency.	Mixed; court affirmed dependency denial but suggested need for individualized adjudication in future cases.
Should this court certify conflicts or adopt NJ-like individualized approach for SIJ petitions?	Call for nationwide uniform approach; individualized hearings are essential.	Existing Florida cases control; no need for broader certification.	Court declined certification in majority but acknowledged debate and potential for future reform.

Key Cases Cited

F.L.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 912 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (recognizes dependency unrelated to immigration status; child’s motive irrelevant to dependency determination)
In re K.B.L.V., 176 So.3d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (special concurring note on limitations of summary denial; emphasizes individualized adjudication)
In re B.Y.G.M., 176 So.3d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (abandonment/neglect timing considered; supports need for factual findings)
In re Y.V., 160 So.3d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (rejects blanket denial; petitions may be adjudicated dependent despite geography of events)
In re J.A.T.E., 170 So.3d 931 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (private dependency petitions questioned; notes lack of DCF position at times)
D.A.O.L. v. Department of Children & Families, 170 So.3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (denial without position by DCF; part of the 2015 SIJ discussion)
In re E.G.S.-H., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 693b (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2015) (early Miami-Dade ruling; cited in analysis of remote-abandonment claims)
In re K.B.L.V., 176 So.3d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (special concurring opinion; discusses role of state courts vs. federal immigration)