5D05-3102 Morcroft v. J.H.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2006 » 5D05-3102 Morcroft v. J.H.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D05-3102

Case Date: 07/31/2006

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006

HEATHER MORCROFT, GUARDIAN AD LITEM, Appellant, v. J.H., FATHER OF C.H., J.H., ETC., ET AL., Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 4, 2006 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Maura T. Smith, Judge. Heather Morcroft, Orlando, pro se . Ryan Thomas Truskoski of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee J.H. Charles D. Peters, Orlando, for Appellee Department of Children and Families. SHARP, W., Senior Judge. Morcroft, guardian ad litem of three minor children, appeals from a final order that dismissed a dependency action against the children's father, after a trial. 1 In this Case No. 5D05-3102

unusual case, the Department did not file a notice of appeal nor move to join Morcroft as an appellant, and was limited to filing an Answer Brief, in which it acknowledged it
1

Jurisdiction is based on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.146(b).

could neither argue to uphold the order on appeal nor oppose it.2 We reverse for further proceedings, as we determine the order was based on misstatements and misapplication of the law. The facts are not in dispute. In March 2005, the Department sheltered the minor children after the father had engaged in a vicious assault on the mother in her home, and in the presence of the children. He struck her repeatedly on her body and head with an object (apparently a hammer). She suffered a fractured skull and other injuries and was hospitalized for a period of time. The children were sheltered with the maternal grandmother. The dependency court issued a no -contact order against the father and the paternal grandmother. The father was ultimately charged with multiple criminal offenses: attempted first degree murder with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, three counts of child abuse, and domestic violence. In April 2005, the mother obtained a permanent injunction for protection from domestic violence against the father from the domestic relations division of the circuit court. The injunction prohibits the father from going near the family home, the mother's place of employment, and the children's day care location. It finds that the father

willfully violated a prior temporary ex parte injunction based on earlier domestic violence, which the mother had obtained prior to this attack on her. The father had notice of the temporary injunction, which may have precipitated the March incident of violence against the mother.

2

See M.A. v. Dept. of Children & Families, 906 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 2

The permanent injunction also grants "temporary custody" of the children to the mother and the maternal grandmother, "DCF in charge," and prohibits the father from having any contact with the children "until further order of the Court." On April 26, 2005, the mother was declared non-offending and the children were placed in her custody. An adjudicatory hearing regarding the father was held on July 12, 2005. At this hearing, the mother sought dismissal of the dependency petition

against the father because she had obtained a permanent injunction against the father, and thus she argued, a finding of dependency against the father was not necessary. She testified she intended to file for dissolution of marriage from the father, although she had not yet done so. She further testified that since the attack and his subsequent incarceration for violating the temporary injunction, she had had no contact with the father. At the adjudicatory hearing, the details of the father's attack on the mother were established, as well as the circumstance that the children were present in the room at the time. Substantial competent evidence was also presented as to the impact of the attack on the children. When a protective investigator arrived at the scene, she found the children huddled in the back of a police cruiser, alone, their clothes covered in the mother's blood. They were upset and shivering. One talked about being scared and hiding in the closet. Another interjected that "he hit Mommy, Mommy got hurt, Mommy's bleeding in her head." The first child described how his father grabbed Mommy by the neck and hit her on the face, neck and body. He was also afraid that Daddy might hurt him.

3

The mother also testified that after this incident of domestic violence, the children's behavior changed. One was afraid everywhere they went, stayed close to her and asked a lot of questions about what happened to the father. Another became more aggressive and began to fight. There was no allegation or evidence that the father had ever physically abused the children. The court declined to find the children dependent as to the father for several reasons. The trial judge announced that the evidence regarding emotional harm to the children in order to establish child abuse was inadequate because the Department had not presented an expert to testify in this regard, and one was required in a case where no physical harm was proven. It also declined to find prospective abuse as to the

children because the Department had failed to establish a "cycle" of domestic violence in front of the children. The remaining basis for the trial court's refusal to find the

children dependent as to the father was that the parents are separated and an injunction is in place with a no-contact order. Thus, there is no threat to the children. A trial court's final ruling of dependency, vel non, is a mixed question of law and fact, and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. T.G. v. Dept. Children & Families, 927 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). With regard to the trial court's statements of the law regarding the requirement of expert testimony for a finding of abuse and neglect, we respectfully disagree. No expert witness is required to bolster evidence regarding the detrimental effect of witnessing domestic violence on children in order to support a finding of dependency. D.D. v. Dept. of Children & Families, 773 So. 2d 615, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

4

Further, we think that the evidence was sufficient to have sustained a finding of dependency based on abuse. Chapter 39 defines a "dependent" child as one who is found by the court to have been abandoned, abused or neglected by his or her parents or one who is "at substantial risk of imminent abuse, abandonment or neglect by the parent or parents."

Download 5D05-3102 Morcroft v. J.H..pdf