Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 23, 2017.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
Nos. 3D17-919 & 3D17-906
Lower Tribunal No. 05-15321
________________
J.B., The Mother, and M.W., The Father,
Appellants,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Appellees.
Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cindy S.
Lederman, Judge.
Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third
Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant J.B.,
The Mother; Thomas J. Butler, for appellant M.W., The Father.
Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Laura J.
Lee (Sanford), for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.
Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
In this consolidated appeal, a mother and father appeal a final judgment
terminating their parental rights. Because the final order is supported by competent
substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
child’s hearsay statements, we affirm.
The mother and father argue that the trial court erred in admitting several
child hearsay statements. Section 90.803(23)(a), Florida Statutes (2016),
provides—under specific circumstances—for the admission of hearsay statements
from a child “with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 16 or
less” if those statements describe “any act of child abuse or neglect.” In order for a
statement to be deemed admissible, the trial court must conduct a hearing and find
that “the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient
safeguards of reliability.” § 90.803(23)(a)(1). If the child is unavailable to testify
as a witness, the statement is admissible only if “there is other corroborative
evidence of the abuse or offense.” § 90.803(23)(a)(2)(b).
Here, the trial court made the requisite findings of reliability and
corroborative evidence under the statute in a separate written order on the
Department’s motion for admission of the child’s hearsay statements. Finding no
error in that order, we hold the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting
the statements.
2
The trial court ultimately found, “[t]he child has waited his entire life for the
parents to learn to keep him safe and nurtured, the parents have failed and the child
desperately needs permanency.” Because the trial court’s detailed, twenty-five
page final order is supported by competent substantial evidence, there is no basis
for reversal.
Affirmed.
3