Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog
Few areas of family law carry weight equal to termination of parental rights, where the court’s decision can permanently redefine a family’s future. These cases often involve complex medical evidence, competing expert testimony, and deeply emotional circumstances, all of which demand intensive judicial scrutiny. A recent decision from a Florida court highlights how courts evaluate claims of newly discovered evidence after parental rights have been terminated, especially when parents attempt to raise new expert theories long after trial. If you are involved in a dependency or termination proceeding, it is advisable to talk to a Miami child custody attorney for guidance on how to protect your parental rights.
Case History
Allegedly, the Department of Children and Families opened two dependency cases after discovering multiple unexplained and severe injuries on infant twins. These injuries included rib fractures, extremity fractures, a skull fracture, a lacerated liver, and a bruised eye, many of which displayed different stages of healing. The half-brother, though uninjured, lived in the same home as the twins and the parents when the Department sheltered the children. The cases were later consolidated.
It is alleged that the trial court conducted a full bench trial involving extensive medical testimony, photographic evidence, hospital records, and expert opinions addressing whether the injuries resulted from nonaccidental trauma or a potential medical condition such as brittle bone disease or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court found that the injuries were indicative of nonaccidental trauma and terminated the parental rights of both parents to the twins and the father’s rights to the half-brother.
Reportedly, the parents then filed their first motions for extraordinary relief, claiming newly discovered evidence related to the mother’s genetic testing. The trial court reopened the proceedings, allowing both sides to present additional expert testimony regarding potential genetic or metabolic explanations. After hearing this evidence, the trial court issued amended final judgments spanning eighty-eight pages and again terminated parental rights. The parents appealed, and the appellate court affirmed without opinion.
It is reported that the parents continued to file additional motions for extraordinary relief. Their third motion relied on the opinion of a bone fragility expert who reviewed the same medical records previously admitted at trial. Their fourth motion cited the opinion of a geneticist who suggested additional genetic testing but acknowledged that the identified variant had unknown clinical significance. The trial court denied both sets of motions, and the parents appealed the denials.
Evidence in Dependency Cases
The court reviewed the denial of the motions for extraordinary relief under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Relief based on newly discovered evidence requires the moving parties to show that the evidence could not have been discovered with due diligence before the rehearing deadline and that it would probably produce a different outcome at trial.
The court emphasized that finality in termination cases carries exceptional importance because children require permanency, and prolonged litigation can cause substantial harm. The parents failed to satisfy the due diligence requirement. The bone fragility expert was consulted only after the amended final judgments were entered, and his opinions relied entirely on medical records already reviewed by prior experts at trial.
Seeking a new expert to reinterpret known facts does not constitute newly discovered evidence. The geneticist referenced in the fourth motion was not contacted for nearly a year, despite the parents’ awareness that genetic factors had been considered throughout the proceedings. Moreover, the geneticist’s findings were speculative, labeled the genetic variant as having unknown significance, and repeated theories already explored and rejected by the trial court.
The court relied on established precedent holding that new expert opinions, reinterpreted evidence, or cumulative testimony do not constitute newly discovered evidence. Because the parents did not act diligently and because the proffered evidence would not have changed the outcome, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motions. As such, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.
Meet with a Trusted Miami Dependency and Family Law Attorney
If you are facing a dependency proceeding or believe a court has made an incorrect determination regarding your parental rights, it is critical to speak to an attorney. The trusted Miami child custody attorneys of The Law Offices of Sandy T. Fox, P.A. can assess your case and advise you of your options. Call 800-596-0579 or contact the firm online to set up a confidential conference.