S.T. v. Department of Children & Family Services
87 So. 3d 827
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Intact family of four; mother is primary breadwinner; father has past alcohol and substance issues but has been largely absent from the criminal system recently.
- Department filed a non-shelter petition alleging prospective abuse/neglect by father and prospective neglect by mother due to denial of the problem.
- Petition claimed father’s chronic alcohol use would continue, placing children at substantial risk of imminent harm; mother allegedly knew of but denied the problem.
- Adjudicatory hearing featured Department witnesses (father, mother, school principal, kindergarten teacher) and mother’s surrogate grandmother witness; no child or mental health expert testified.
- Circuit Court found both parents dependent, discounting their testimony as not credible and concluding mother was in denial about father’s addiction.
- On appeal, court reversed the dependency finding as to the mother, holding the evidence was not competent, substantial, or imminent enough to support dependency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there competent substantial evidence to support dependency as to the mother? | Department: mother knew of father’s addiction and failed to protect. | Mother testified to monitoring and not believing father’s level of use; evidence insufficient. | No competent substantial evidence; reversal of dependency as to mother. |
| Did the Department prove imminent risk of harm from the mother’s conduct? | Father’s drinking posed ongoing risk; mother’s denial exacerbated threat. | Evidence did not show imminent risk from mother’s conduct or knowledge. | Imminent risk not proven; dependency reversed for mother. |
| Did the circuit court properly rely on credibility determinations and non-testimonial evidence to sustain dependency? | Credibility issues justified finding dependency. | Credibility findings unsupported by competent evidence; testimony inadequate. | Circuit court erred; lack of competent evidence to support dependency as to mother. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 947 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (imminent harm standard requires competent evidence)
- L.R., 947 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (competent evidence required for dependency findings)
- N.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 939 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (imminent risk standard applied)
- A.M.T. v. State, 883 So.2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversal when lack of competent evidence of risk)
- A.T.N. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 70 So.3d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (department bears burden of proving dependency by preponderance)
- R.F. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 2000) (definition and application of competent, substantial evidence)
- C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 997 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (standards for sustained dependency findings)