JOHN ROWAN AND RACHEL ROWAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements from child victims without making the specific findings of fact required by statute.
The parents of J.R. and R.R. appealed a final order finding their children dependent. The admissibility of hearsay statements made by the children was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dependency Of Children cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Chief Judge.
The parents of J.R. and R.R. appeal the final order finding their children dependent. We reverse.
This case turns on whether or not certain hearsay statements alleged to have been made by J.R. and R.R. were properly admitted 1 pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989). The statute provides for the admission of out of court statements by a child victim of sexual abuse under certain circumstances providing that:
1. The court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability. In making its determination, the court may consider the mental and physical age and maturity of the child, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the child to the offender, the reliability of the assertion, the reliability of the child victim, and any other factor deemed appropriate; and
2. The child either:
a. Testifies; or
b. Is unavailable as a witness, provided that there is other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense. Unavailability shall include a finding by the court that the child’s participation in the trial or proceeding would result in a substantia] likelihood of severe emotional or mental harm, in addition to findings pursuant to s. 90.804(1).
* * * * * *
(c) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.
Although the appellee has not appeared or otherwise assisted us by filing a brief, it is obvious that the order providing for the admission of J.R. and R.R.’s hearsay statements which was prepared by HRS fails to make the findings required by the statute.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new adjudicatory hearing.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . The adjudicatory hearing was conducted by a predecessor judge.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Townsend v. State, 613 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…required. In Russell v. State, 572 So. 2d 940, 942 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So. 2d 1036 (Fla.1991), this court said the failure to object to the lack of such findings would prevent review on appeal. Compare Rowan v. Dep’t. of HRS, 588 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). It appears that, unless such findings are constitutionally required, the failure to object to the lack of findings will not permit appellate review. In State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla.1984), the supreme court explai…