DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CHILDREN'S MEDICAL SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTINA SILVERS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Department of Health, Children's Medical Services appealed a permanent injunction prohibiting it from obtaining a developmental evaluation of a dependent child whose custody was being transferred to the mother. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that the trial court properly weighed the non-invasive nature of the evaluation against the weak medical justification and the risk of delaying parent-child reunification.
The trial court properly issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the developmental evaluation. The trial court was not required to accept the professionals' testimony at face value, and properly weighed the non-invasive nature of the test against the weak medical recommendations, the lack of the pediatrician's suggestion, and the risk of delaying reunification.
[1] A court is not required to accept at face value the testimony of professionals when determining the necessity of a medical evaluation.
[2] The potential for delays in child reunification must be weighed against the recommendations for a developmental evaluation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court was not required to accept at face value the testimony of the professionals”
Establishes that courts have discretion to evaluate expert testimony critically and are not bound by professional recommendations without considering context and competing interests.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dependent child in medical foster care was about to be transferred to the mother's custody. CMS and the medical foster mother scheduled a developmen…
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 Dependent Child cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
The Department of Health, Children’s Medical Services (CMS), appeals a permanent injunction prohibiting it from obtaining a developmental evaluation of a dependent child. We affirm.
When the custody of the child was about to be transferred to the mother from medical foster care, the mother’s attorney learned that the child’s medical foster mother and CMS had scheduled the evaluation of the child. The mother, the guardian ad litem, and the Department of Children and Families opposed the evaluation.
At the hearing on the mother’s petition for the injunction, the evidence established that the child was no longer considered to be at risk medically, and that the child’s pediatrician had never noted a developmental disability. Although two doctors recommended the proposed evaluation as a worthwhile endeavor, neither testified that it was necessary. When one of the doctors was reminded that the pediatrician had noted no developmental abnormalities, and that the evaluation had not been suggested or scheduled until the child’s transfer to the mother was imminent, the doctor responded that many parents would want to know their child’s developmental status, even if it seemed to the parents and to the pediatrician that the child was perfectly fine, given the fact that the child had had some difficulties that could be associated with developmental delay or brain damage.
Contrary to the argument of CMS, the trial court was not required to accept at face value the testimony of the professionals. See Tolley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 667 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Furthermore, the fact that the developmental evaluation is not an invasive test, and apparently could do the child no physical harm, had to be weighed against the relatively tepid recommendations for it, the fact that the idea for it was not inspired by the child’s pediatrician, and the real possibility that it could lead to delays, through litigation or otherwise, in the reunification of the child and mother. AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tolley v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 667 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)