Relief of L.E. by the Department of Children and Families
SB 32 is a claims bill that provides a $3.8 million appropriation to compensate L.E. for catastrophic injuries and damages attributed to the negligence of the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). The bill’s findings describe a sequence of child welfare decisions beginning shortly after L.E.’s birth in 2019, including DCF’s investigation of abuse and drug-exposure reports, use of an out-of-home safety plan, return of the child to her parents, and closure of the investigation despite acknowledged instability and violence in the home. The bill states that L.E. was then subjected to severe abuse, resulting in traumatic brain injury, seizures, cerebral palsy, and other lasting impairments.
The measure implements the negotiated settlement approved by the circuit court, under which the state had already paid the $200,000 sovereign-immunity cap and would pay the remaining $3.8 million only if this claim bill became law and was funded. It directs the Chief Financial Officer to issue payment from state funds to an irrevocable trust for L.E.’s exclusive benefit and limits attorney fees to no more than 25 percent of the total award. The bill also declares that the amount paid under the settlement and this act is intended to be the sole compensation for all present and future claims against DCF arising from the incident.
In terms of state law impact, SB 32 does not amend the general child welfare statutes or sovereign immunity law, but it creates a specific statutory appropriation and payment mechanism for a single claimant. It effectively authorizes the Legislature to pay damages above the standard limits in section 768.28, Florida Statutes, for a particular negligence claim against a state agency. The bill also resolves the state’s exposure for this incident by barring additional compensation claims against DCF for the same factual circumstances.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly sympathetic to L.E. and critical of DCF’s handling of the case. The preamble is detailed and accusatory, emphasizing repeated warnings, known risk factors, and the agency’s failure to protect a vulnerable child. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no additional evidence of debate or opposition in the available context, but the bill itself indicates that DCF agreed to the settlement and would not oppose the claim bill.
The main point of contention inherent in the measure is not whether the child suffered harm, but whether the state should be required to pay above the sovereign-immunity cap for DCF’s alleged negligence and whether the facts justify a special appropriation. The bill also implicates the role of DCF and its subcontracted child welfare agency, since the underlying lawsuit against the subcontractor remains pending. The legislation is therefore best understood as a private relief bill, a claims bill, and a child welfare negligence settlement implementation measure.
SB 32 appropriates $3.8 million from the General Revenue Fund to the Department of Children and Families for payment to L.E. through an irrevocable trust, supplementing the $200,000 already paid under Florida’s sovereign immunity cap in section 768.28, Florida Statutes. It creates a one-time statutory payment for a specific claimant, limits attorney fees to 25 percent of the award, and states that the payment is the exclusive compensation for claims against DCF arising from the described events. The bill does not broadly change child welfare law, but it authorizes payment above ordinary tort-claim limits for a single state-agency negligence case.
The bill’s tone is highly sympathetic to L.E. and strongly adverse to the Department of Children and Families’ handling of the case. The preamble frames the agency’s conduct as a failure to protect a vulnerable child despite known risks, and the bill notes that DCF agreed to the settlement and would not oppose the claim bill. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so the available context does not show organized opposition or divided sentiment beyond the bill’s own critical findings.
The central issue is whether the Legislature should approve a special appropriation to pay damages beyond the sovereign-immunity limit for alleged negligence by DCF in a child protection case. Related concerns include whether DCF and its subcontracted agency adequately assessed danger, whether the out-of-home safety plan and later case closure were appropriate, and whether the state should bear financial responsibility for the resulting injuries. The bill also leaves open the separate litigation against the subcontracted child welfare agency, which may be a point of continuing legal and policy interest.