H6535 is a claim bill that provides relief to L.E. through an appropriation from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Children and Families (DCF). The bill recognizes that L.E. suffered catastrophic, lifelong injuries after DCF and its subcontracted child welfare provider allegedly failed to protect her from severe abuse and neglect in 2019. It incorporates detailed findings about the family’s history, the department’s investigation, the decision to close the case, and the resulting injuries, including traumatic brain injury, seizures, cerebral palsy, and ongoing developmental and medical needs.
The bill appropriates $3.8 million to be paid to an irrevocable trust for L.E.’s exclusive benefit, following a prior $200,000 payment under Florida’s sovereign immunity limits. It also states that the combined payments under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, and this act are intended to be the only compensation for all present and future claims against DCF arising from the incident, and it caps attorney’s fees at 25 percent of the total award. The act becomes effective upon becoming law.
Impact
This bill creates a one-time, special appropriation outside the ordinary claims process to satisfy a negotiated settlement against DCF. It does not broadly amend child welfare statutes, but it does direct state funds to compensate an individual claimant and confirms that the payment is tied to the state’s sovereign immunity framework under section 768.28, Florida Statutes. The practical effect is to authorize payment of the remaining settlement amount and to resolve L.E.’s claims against DCF, while leaving related claims against the subcontracted child welfare agency pending.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received favorably and with little opposition in the Legislature. It passed the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee unanimously, then the House Budget Committee unanimously, and finally the House on third reading by a wide margin with no recorded nays. The vote pattern suggests broad agreement with compensating the child for the harm described in the bill and with the negotiated settlement reached with DCF.
Contention
There is little visible legislative contention in the available record, likely because the bill concerns a specific, fact-intensive claim and the department agreed not to oppose it. The underlying issue, however, is serious: whether DCF and its subcontractor failed in their child-protection duties by closing the case despite ongoing danger signs. The bill’s findings place responsibility on the department’s negligence, while also noting that civil claims against the subcontracted agency remain unresolved, which may be the main remaining point of dispute outside this claim bill.