## Facts

- M.W. was the father of three young biological daughters (approximately ages three to eight).
- M.W. also lived with (or had access to) his stepdaughter, J.G.
- Over about three years, beginning when J.G. was around ten, M.W. sexually abused her, including repeated intercourse.
- M.W. was criminally charged based on the sexual abuse of J.G. and was free on bail while the criminal case was pending.
- In a dependency matter involving J.G., M.W. entered a consent order under which J.G. was adjudicated dependent and removed from M.W.’s custody.
- Although there was no direct evidence that M.W. had sexually abused his three biological daughters, the Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) filed a separate dependency petition seeking to have those daughters adjudicated dependent based on risk of harm.
- A psychologist evaluated M.W. and reported that:
  - The risk of M.W. sexually abusing his biological daughters was “unlikely,” but the risk was increased by his established abuse of J.G.
  - As to J.G., M.W. presented a high likelihood of reoffending if allowed access.
  - M.W. blamed J.G. for the abuse, showed no remorse, and was psychologically disturbed.
  - Sex-offender treatment was recommended, and there was no evidence M.W. had completed such treatment at the time of the hearing.
- The trial court took judicial notice of the prior consent dependency order concerning J.G., considered the psychologist’s testimony and other circumstances, and adjudicated M.W.’s three biological daughters dependent.
- M.W. appealed the dependency adjudication of his biological daughters.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could adjudicate M.W.’s biological daughters dependent based on the risk of sexual abuse inferred from M.W.’s established sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, even without proof that the biological daughters had been abused.
2. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the finding that the biological daughters faced a sufficient risk of harm to justify dependency under Florida law.

## Decision

- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dependency adjudication.
- The court held that the trial court had competent, substantial evidence—viewed in the total circumstances—to find the biological daughters dependent based on the risk created by M.W.’s sexual abuse of J.G. and related evidence bearing on future danger.

## Legal Principles

- A child may be adjudicated dependent when evidence shows a substantial risk of harm, even if the child has not yet been harmed.
- A parent’s sexual abuse of one child in the household can be probative of risk to other children in the parent’s care, particularly where the conduct was serious, repeated, and involved a young victim.
- In assessing risk, courts may consider the total circumstances, including prior adjudications (including by consent), psychological evaluations, denial of responsibility, lack of remorse, untreated conditions, and failure to complete recommended treatment.
- Appellate review of a dependency adjudication is limited to whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence; the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the dependency adjudication of M.W.’s three biological daughters, concluding that, given M.W.’s repeated sexual abuse of his stepdaughter and the psychological evidence regarding increased risk and lack of treatment, the trial court had competent, substantial evidence to find the daughters were at sufficient risk of harm to warrant dependency jurisdiction.


M.W. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 881 So. 2d 734 (2004)