## Facts

- Florida’s Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) prepared a proposed confirmed report for the central child-abuse registry stating that T.S. (the father) had inflicted “mental abuse” on his 12-year-old son and also alleging other threatened harm or mental-injury abuse.
- T.S. requested expungement of the proposed confirmed report, but HRS denied the request.
- T.S. sought a formal administrative hearing.
- The hearing officer noted that the child-abuse statute did not define “mental abuse,” so the officer analyzed the statutory definitions in Florida Statute section 415.503 in sequence, including “abused or neglected child,” “child abuse or neglect,” “harm,” and “mental injury.”
- Under the statute, “harm” required a physical, mental, or emotional injury, and “mental injury” meant an injury to a child’s intellectual or psychological capacity shown by a discernible and substantial impairment in the child’s ability to function within the child’s normal range of performance and behavior, considering the child’s culture.
- Applying that chain of definitions, the hearing officer concluded the report could remain classified as proposed confirmed only if the evidence showed T.S. harmed or threatened harm to the child’s mental health or welfare by inflicting a statutory “mental injury.”
- The hearing officer summarized the testimony presented by HRS, but did not expressly state credibility determinations; the hearing officer ultimately determined the evidence did not show a discernible and substantial impairment amounting to “mental injury” and recommended expungement.
- In its final order, HRS adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but rejected the hearing officer’s determination that the evidence did not support a finding of mental injury, and denied expungement.
- T.S. appealed HRS’s final order to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. After adopting a hearing officer’s findings of fact, may HRS deny expungement by reaching an opposite ultimate determination that the same facts establish “mental injury” under section 415.503?
2. Must a mental-abuse registry report be expunged when the adopted findings do not establish the statutory element of “mental injury,” defined as a discernible and substantial impairment in the child’s normal functioning?

## Decision

- The First District Court of Appeal reversed HRS’s final order and remanded.
- The court accepted the hearing officer’s statutory approach: because “mental abuse” was not defined, the agency had to evaluate whether the evidence showed “harm” through “mental injury” as defined in section 415.503.
- On the record as fixed by HRS’s adopted findings, the statutory standard for “mental injury” was not met because the evidence did not demonstrate a discernible and substantial impairment in the child’s ability to function within his normal range.
- Because HRS adopted the hearing officer’s findings but rejected the hearing officer’s bottom-line application of the mental-injury definition without support in those adopted findings, the denial of expungement could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute does not define “mental abuse,” the meaning must be derived from the related statutory definitions that govern abuse determinations, including “harm” and “mental injury.”
- “Mental injury” under section 415.503 requires proof of an injury to the child’s intellectual or psychological capacity evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the child’s ability to function within the child’s normal range of performance and behavior, considering the child’s culture.
- In Florida administrative proceedings, if an agency adopts a hearing officer’s findings of fact, the agency’s final legal result must follow from those adopted findings; the agency may not recharacterize the same adopted facts to reach a contrary outcome without support in the findings.
- A child-abuse registry report may not be maintained as confirmed (or proposed confirmed) unless the statutory elements for the alleged type of abuse are established by the evidence reflected in the findings.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because HRS adopted the hearing officer’s factual findings yet denied expungement even though those findings did not establish the statutory requirement of “mental injury,” defined as a discernible and substantial impairment in the child’s normal functioning; without that element, the proposed confirmed mental-abuse report could not be maintained.


T.S. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 654 So. 2d 1028 (1995)