In Re M.F. v. Florida Dept. Of Children & Families

770 So.2d 1189 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Florida Department of Children and Families (P) filed a petition seeking to remove from L.F. her three natural children, K.F. (age 8), M.F. (age 5), and M.F. (age 3). The circuit court granted the petition and ordered the children placed in the grandparents' care. P filed an amended petition for dependency on July 6 alleging that the children had been subjected to abuse and neglect in their home and seeking to have them adjudicated dependent and placed in the temporary legal custody of the grandparents. P alleged that the children were subject to both prospective abuse and neglect because the father, D, was a convicted child molester who was currently imprisoned. D challenged the petition, and he challenged it only as to M.F., and M.F. P alleged that the children were in immediate danger because L.F., the mother, has failed to protect them from a batterer, i.e., her paramour; her paramour was arrested May 3 for beating L.F. and battering the three-year-old; her paramour made verbal threats to kill L.F. and the children as he was being arrested; L.F. has refused several times to seek a protective order; she has since moved in with the paramour's family; the paramour has a record of prior arrests for aggravated assault, battery, and theft, and is now incarcerated. The children's father is incarcerated for a conviction of attempted sexual battery by an adult on a victim under the age of twelve (12). This crime was committed upon the child [K.F.]. D is serving a fifteen (15) year sentence. He is unable to care for his children. The trial court concluded the children [M.F.] and [M.F.] are dependent having been at risk of prospective neglect and prospective abuse if placed in the father's care. D appealed. On appeal, the Third District found the act of sexual abuse of a child sufficient in itself to establish a substantial likelihood of future abuse and neglect of a sibling. However, the Fifth District has required additional evidence of a likelihood that the parent will similarly abuse the other children. The court certified conflict with decisions of the Fifth District on this issue. D contends that the Second and Third Districts are in error. He claims the [following: The simple fact that a parent committed a sex act on a child is insufficient by itself to support a final ruling of dependency as to a different child.