Department of Children and Family Services v. Chapman
9 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009) (April)
The district court reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of DCF. Two families sued the agency after a substance abuse counselor who it licensed (but did not employ or refer) committed misconduct in treating their children. The district court held that DCF’s statutory duty to license and monitor substance abuse counselors did not create a duty of care in tort to individual members of the public. Rather, the department was held to have a general regulatory duty to the public, for which no tort duty exists. The Court examined case law that came to seemingly opposite results, such as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Yamuni, 529 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1988). The district court concluded that the department in that case had a “direct relationship” with the victim that was not present in this case, thus making the cases distinguishable.