G.P. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

G.P. v. Department of Children & Families

125 So. 3d 241, 2013 WL 691767, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3198

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-3361

StatusPublished

This text of 125 So. 3d 241 (G.P. v. Department of Children & Families) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

G.P. v. Department of Children & Families, 125 So. 3d 241, 2013 WL 691767, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3198 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We deny G.P.’s motion for rehearing, but withdraw our previous per curiam opinion dated January 22, 2013, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

G.P., the father, appeals an adjudication of dependency as to his two biological children, J.P. and S.P. Citing In re M.F., 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2000), DCF conceded that evidence that G.P. had sexually abused his stepdaughter, standing alone, was insufficient to prove that there was a substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect to his two biological children.

Here, however, evidence that G.P. sexually assaulted his stepdaughter was not the sole evidence relied upon by the trial court in finding that G.P. presented an imminent risk of harm to his two biological children. Through a combination of lay and expert witnesses, DCF presented evidence that there was a significant risk that G.P. would commit the same sexual acts on his biological children that he committed upon his stepdaughter. This evidence was sufficient to meet the burden set forth by our supreme court in M.F. See B.A.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families of State of Fla., 824 So.2d 241, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The prior incidents of abuse were but one piece of relevant evidence, and the trial court properly considered all other facts and circumstances. The children were found dependent as to both parents, not solely because of the earlier acts of abuse, but instead because of the unreasonable risk of danger currently existing to the children.”). We therefore affirm the dependency order.

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We deny G.P.’s motion for rehearing, but withdraw our previous per curiam opinion dated January 22, 2013, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

G.P., the father, appeals an adjudication of dependency as to his two biological children, J.P. and S.P. Citing In re M.F., 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2000), DCF conceded that evidence that G.P. had sexually abused his stepdaughter, standing alone, was insufficient to prove that there was a substantial risk of imminent abuse or neglect to his two biological children.

Here, however, evidence that G.P. sexually assaulted his stepdaughter was not the sole evidence relied upon by the trial court in finding that G.P. presented an imminent risk of harm to his two biological children. Through a combination of lay and expert witnesses, DCF presented evidence that there was a significant risk that G.P. would commit the same sexual acts on his biological children that he committed upon his stepdaughter. This evidence was sufficient to meet the burden set forth by our supreme court in M.F. See B.A.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families of State of Fla., 824 So.2d 241, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The prior incidents of abuse were but one piece of relevant evidence, and the trial court properly considered all other facts and circumstances. The children were found dependent as to both parents, not solely because of the earlier acts of abuse, but instead because of the unreasonable risk of danger currently existing to the children.”). We therefore affirm the dependency order.

Affirmed.

MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 3d 241, 2013 WL 691767, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gp-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack