SS v. Department of Children and Families, 81 So. 3d 618

Circuit court issued Dependency Shelter Order on June 6, 2011 removing C.M. and I.M. from S.S.'s custody.
Department filed a Petition for Dependency alleging abuse, abandonment, neglect, and risk of imminent harm.
Grounds included presumed domestic violence by S.S.'s paramour, alcohol/drug abuse, and educational neglect due to absenteeism.
Trial court adjudicated dependency, finding substantial risk of imminent abuse/neglect and several grounds against S.S.
Appellant mother argues evidence does not support abuse of alcohol/drugs, domestic violence, dental neglect, or psychological instability as to risk.
First District Court of Appeal reverses the dependency adjudication for lack of competent, substantial evidence on all grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there competent evidence of alcohol/drug abuse causing risk?	S.S. argues no proof of extensive, abusive use impairing care.	Department contends evidence showed impairment and risk to children.	No competent evidence to prove impairment from substances.
Did evidence show substantial risk from domestic violence?	Children not shown to witness or be affected by violence.	Department argues significant/domestic violence present in home.	Insufficient evidence of domestic violence in the children's presence or impact.
Was there sufficient proof of neglect of dental health?	Lack of dental care did not significantly impair health; care provided later.	Counselor testified to prior lack of dental care as neglect.	Evidence did not establish neglect of dental health to support dependency.
Was psychological instability of a parent tied to child impairment?	Monster evidence of self-mutilation without nexus to child harm.	Mother's psychiatric history could affect child welfare.	No explicit nexus shown between disorder and potential impairment.
Do these findings collectively support a dependency adjudication?	Grounds collectively showed imminent risk of harm.	Evidence insufficient to establish imminent risk.	The order reversed due to lack of competent substantial evidence on all grounds.

C.W. v. Dep't of Children & Fams., 10 So.3d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dependency requires imminent threat to child from current circumstances)
J.B.M. v. Dep't of Children & Fams., 870 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (imminent risk requires prospective harm shown)
In re L.C., 947 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (lack of evidence of abuse in absence of direct acts)
B.D. v. Dep't of Children & Fams., 797 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (requires explicit connection between psychiatric history and child harm)
I.T. v. State, Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 532 So.2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (necessity of explicit link between parental disorder and child impairment)
In re S.J.T., 475 So.2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (evidence foundation for testing and reliability standards)
E.M.A. v. Dep't of Children & Fams., 795 So.2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (definition of imminent and prospective risk)
T.G. v. Dep't of Children & Fams., 927 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (mixed question of law and fact; standard of review)