By: Heidi Jo S. - Title: Courts grant petition for Woman after disproving case evidence.

Seilkop v. Barker, 148 So. 3d 865 (2014) Link to opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9972712049165151371&q=child+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10&as_ylo=2014 Title: Courts grant petition for Woman after disproving case evidence. Seilkop had given her eight month old child to the Barkers, the great aunt and uncle of the child, until she could get on her feet financially to support the child. Barkers were rewarded temporary custody of the child. Seilkop went to get her child back and petitioned the courts terminate the temporary custody, but the Barker’s objected to the petition. After an investigation of Seilkop, the courts denied the petition stating that Seilkop was not a fit parent because of three reasons: One being that the apartment she is living in is too close to retention pond and was “unfit and dangerous” and the second being her relationship status and how she had “unstable relationships, domestic violence, and other illegal activities such as underage drinking.” The third being that Seilkop is unable to adequately care for the child during monthly visitations. This case was to show she was a fit parent and that there was no proof that she is not. A fit parent is defined as one who has not abused, abandoned, or neglected the child. They have stated that Seilkop has not abused nor abandoned her child therefore they are stating she has neglected the child. Neglect of a child mean that the child is “deprived of… nessessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment.” The first finding that the courts stated made Seilkop an unfit parent states about her apartment being dangerous, this is speculative and does not rise to the level of neglect stated. They have not shown that Seilkop left the child alone in the apartment or that he ever wandered to the nearby pond on his own. Seilkop stated she installed a lock to prevent such an incident from happening. The second finding was about Seilkop’s history of underage drinking and her relationships. This also does not fall under the neglect category. There is no evidence stating that her actions resulted in physical, mental, or emotional harm to the child. The third finding stated that Seilkop was insufficient to care for the child. Mrs. Barker testified stating that the child would come back after a visitation with Seilkop and he would be hot, red-faced and fussy and wearing a dirty diaper with sour milk in his cup. She also testified after more recent visits that the child still appears to be hungry and tired after being returned to them. Although there seems to be no testimony to prove that there was “deprivation” of necessary food, clothing, or shelter. Under these findings the courts denying Seilkop’s petition for her child was not legally supported with any proper evidence. The case as reversed and remanded.