Florida Court Addresses Testimony Provided By Child In Domestic Violence Case

The Florida courts take domestic violence seriously. Not only can you have criminal charges filed against you, but you might also face sanctions in family court. That’s what happened in the case of Schmigel v. Schmigel, Nos. 1D2024-1572 & 1D2024-1597 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 12, 2025). In this case, both parties made accusations of domestic violence against the other. In this article, the Orlando, FL, domestic violence lawyers will discuss the case and how it played out.

Background of the case 

This case involved cross-petitions for injunctions for protection against domestic violence filed by both parents. One petition was brought on behalf of a minor child. At the final hearing, the trial court permitted the child, who was 16 years old, to attend and provide testimony regarding the alleged incidents of domestic violence

The father objected to the minor giving testimony. He argued that Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.407 barred compelling a child to testify without a specific court order. He also asserted that allowing the child’s testimony violated both the rule and his due process rights.

In this case, the trial court allowed the 16-year-old to provide testimony, determining that the child’s perspective was directly relevant to the allegations. After the court heard the evidence, including the child’s statements, the court entered injunctions for protection against the mother.

The father appealed the procedural rulings, particularly the trial court’s decision to allow the 16-year-old to testify. He argued that it violated Rule 12.407 and due process. The mother also appealed the outcome, contesting the entry of injunctions against her.

The appeal 

On appeal, the father argued that the injunction should be vacated because the trial court erred in permitting the child to testify without a prior necessity ruling under Rule 12.407.

The First District Court of Appeal clarified the scope of Rule 12.407(a). The rule prohibits requiring a minor to appear at a deposition, hearing, or trial unless the court determines that the child’s testimony is absolutely necessary and relevant. In this case, the court emphasized that:

• The rule is intended to protect children from unnecessary involvement in litigation, not to provide litigants with a procedural weapon.
• A parent cannot invoke the rule as a “shield” to exclude testimony that is probative and relevant to determining whether or not domestic violence occurred.
• The trial court, by allowing the testimony, implicitly found that it was necessary and relevant.

On appeal, the court also noted that the rule’s commentary encourages judges to weigh the need for a child’s testimony against any potential harm it may cause. It does not, however, create an absolute bar.

In this case, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the injunctions against the mother, holding that allowing the 16-year-old to testify was within the trial court’s discretion and consistent with the protective purpose of Rule 12.407.

Thus, children can testify in domestic violence proceedings when their testimony is both necessary and relevant.

Talk to an Orlando, FL, Domestic Violence Attorney Today 

Greater Orlando Family Law represents the interests of those who have been the victims of domestic violence in Florida. Call our Orlando family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

casemine.com/judgement/us/67d7b976ba1fd11f940217ee