Domestic violence injunctions exist for an important reason: to protect people, including children, from real and serious harm. At the same time, Florida law requires that these injunctions be grounded in evidence that meets specific legal standards, because an injunction carries significant, life-altering consequences for the person it’s entered against. A recent decision from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal addresses exactly this balance, clarifying what kind of evidence is, and isn’t, sufficient to support a domestic violence injunction when a child’s out-of-court statements are involved. This is a sensitive and important topic, and it’s exactly the kind of case a careful, experienced Tampa divorce lawyer needs to understand deeply, given how often domestic violence and injunction issues intersect with divorce and parenting disputes.
In Roberts v. Roberts, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026), the Second DCA, in an opinion authored by Judge Elizabeth Jack, reversed a trial court’s entry of a domestic violence injunction, finding that it had been granted based solely on a child’s hearsay statements, without any corroborating evidence. The appellate court’s ruling doesn’t suggest that a child’s statements are inherently unreliable, or that allegations involving children shouldn’t be taken seriously. Rather, it reinforces a specific evidentiary principle: uncorroborated hearsay from a child, standing entirely alone, isn’t legally sufficient to support the serious step of entering a domestic violence injunction.
This is a nuanced legal issue that deserves careful, balanced explanation, because it touches on genuinely difficult and consequential circumstances for Florida families. Below, we’ll walk through what happened in Roberts v. Roberts, explain the legal reasoning behind the reversal, and discuss what this means for anyone involved in a domestic violence injunction matter, whether as the petitioner seeking protection or the respondent facing serious allegations.
What Happened in Roberts v. Roberts? A Plain-English Case Summary
Roberts v. Roberts involved a request for a domestic violence injunction, a civil protective order available under Florida law to individuals who have been the victim of domestic violence or who have reasonable cause to believe they’re in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence. In this case, the record on which the trial court based its decision to grant the injunction consisted of hearsay statements attributed to a child, meaning statements the child made outside of court that were then relayed to the court through another witness’s testimony, rather than through the child’s own direct testimony.
The trial court granted the domestic violence injunction based on this evidence. On appeal, the Second DCA reversed, finding that the injunction had been granted based solely on the child’s hearsay statements, without any corroborating evidence to support them. Corroborating evidence, in this context, refers to independent evidence, separate from the hearsay statement itself, that supports or confirms the truth of what was alleged, such as physical evidence, other witness testimony, prior consistent statements made under different circumstances, or other objective indicators supporting the allegation.
Because the injunction rested entirely on uncorroborated hearsay, without this kind of independent supporting evidence, the Second DCA found that the trial court had erred in granting it. As with the other recent appellate rulings we’ve discussed, this brief summary doesn’t detail the specific nature of the allegations, the child’s age, or the full context of the family’s circumstances. What’s clear, and what’s genuinely important for Florida families to understand, is the specific evidentiary principle the Second DCA applied: hearsay from a child, without corroboration, isn’t sufficient, standing alone, to support a domestic violence injunction.
What the Court Decided — and Why It Matters
To understand why this decision matters, and why it strikes an important balance rather than undermining protections for genuine victims of domestic violence, it helps to understand both the legal framework for domestic violence injunctions and the specific role hearsay and corroboration play within that framework.
Why Florida Takes Domestic Violence Injunctions Seriously, on Both Sides
Florida law provides an important and relatively accessible legal process for individuals seeking protection from domestic violence, recognizing the serious, sometimes life-threatening danger that domestic violence can pose. At the same time, Florida courts recognize that a domestic violence injunction carries real, significant consequences for the person it’s entered against, potentially including restrictions on where they can go, who they can contact, and in many cases, direct effects on custody, timesharing, and parental responsibility in a related family law matter. Because of these serious consequences on both sides, Florida law requires that injunctions be supported by legally sufficient evidence, not simply granted based on allegations alone, however serious those allegations might be.
This dual concern, protecting genuine victims while also ensuring injunctions are grounded in reliable evidence, is central to understanding why the evidentiary standard in cases like Roberts v. Roberts matters so much. The goal isn’t to make it harder for genuine victims, including children, to be protected. It’s to ensure that when a court takes the serious step of entering an injunction, that decision rests on a sufficiently reliable evidentiary foundation, protecting the integrity and fairness of the process for everyone involved.
Why Hearsay From Children Raises Specific Evidentiary Concerns
Hearsay, an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, is generally inadmissible under Florida’s Evidence Code unless it falls within a recognized exception. When it comes to statements made by children, Florida law recognizes that children’s statements can raise particular reliability considerations, not because children are inherently untruthful, but because factors like a child’s age, developmental stage, the circumstances under which a statement was made, and the potential for suggestion or misunderstanding can all affect how reliably a specific out-of-court statement reflects what actually happened.
Florida law does provide specific mechanisms for handling child hearsay in appropriate circumstances, including certain statutory hearsay exceptions designed for child victims in specific types of proceedings, often accompanied by particular procedural safeguards, such as requirements for corroboration, findings regarding the reliability of the statement, or other protective measures. The Second DCA’s decision in Roberts v. Roberts reflects this broader principle: when a domestic violence injunction rests on a child’s hearsay statement, Florida law generally requires more than just that statement alone. It requires corroborating evidence to support the reliability and truth of what’s being alleged.
What Corroborating Evidence Actually Looks Like
Corroborating evidence is independent evidence that supports or confirms an allegation, separate from the specific hearsay statement itself. In the context of a case like this, corroborating evidence might include things like physical evidence consistent with the allegations, testimony from another witness who directly observed relevant events or the child’s demeanor and statements shortly after they were made, expert testimony from a medical or mental health professional, or other objective indicators that lend independent support to the allegations. The key requirement is that this evidence needs to be separate from, and supportive of, the hearsay statement itself, not simply a restatement or repetition of the same underlying hearsay.
Without this kind of corroboration, a court is left relying entirely on an out-of-court statement that hasn’t been tested through cross-examination, and that may be subject to the kinds of reliability concerns Florida law specifically recognizes when it comes to children’s hearsay statements. This is precisely the gap the Second DCA identified in Roberts v. Roberts: the injunction rested solely on hearsay, without any of this kind of independent, corroborating support.
Why This Ruling Reflects Careful Balance, Not Skepticism of Children
It’s important to understand this decision within its proper context. The Second DCA’s ruling doesn’t suggest that children’s reports of abuse or domestic violence should be disregarded or treated with general suspicion. Florida law takes allegations involving children’s safety extremely seriously, and the legal system includes numerous mechanisms, including specific hearsay exceptions and procedural protections, specifically designed to allow children’s accounts of what happened to them to be heard and considered by courts, even when a child isn’t testifying directly.
What this case addresses is a narrower, more technical evidentiary question: whether an injunction can be granted based on a child’s hearsay statement standing entirely alone, without any independent corroboration. The Second DCA’s answer, reflecting well-established Florida evidentiary principles, is that it cannot. This requirement protects the integrity and fairness of the injunction process itself, and it doesn’t prevent injunctions from being granted in cases involving genuine allegations backed by appropriate, corroborating evidence. It simply requires that the evidentiary foundation be more than a single, uncorroborated hearsay statement.
Why This Matters for Families Navigating Both Sides of These Cases
This case has real, practical significance for both petitioners seeking protection and respondents facing serious allegations. For petitioners, understanding this evidentiary requirement means recognizing the importance of gathering and presenting corroborating evidence, whenever it exists, rather than relying solely on a child’s reported statements. For respondents, this ruling reinforces an important due process protection: that serious allegations, however troubling, need to be supported by legally sufficient evidence before an injunction with significant, lasting consequences can be entered against them.
Practical Takeaways for Anyone Involved in a Domestic Violence Injunction Matter
Here’s what Roberts v. Roberts means in practical terms whether you’re seeking a domestic violence injunction or responding to one, particularly in a case involving allegations connected to a child.
1. If You’re Seeking Protection, Gather Corroborating Evidence Whenever Possible
If you’re pursuing a domestic violence injunction and your case involves a child’s statements or reports, work closely with your attorney to identify and gather any available corroborating evidence, whether that’s physical evidence, other witness testimony, documentation from a medical or mental health provider, or other objective support for the allegations. Understanding this evidentiary requirement from the outset can help you build the strongest, most legally sound case for protection.
2. Understand the Specific Hearsay Exceptions Available for Child Statements
Florida law provides specific statutory mechanisms for admitting a child’s hearsay statements in certain proceedings, often accompanied by particular procedural requirements. An attorney experienced in domestic violence and family law matters can help you understand whether these exceptions apply to your situation, and what specific procedural steps need to be followed to properly present this kind of evidence to the court.
3. If You’re a Respondent, Know That Serious Allegations Still Require Sufficient Evidence
If you’re facing a domestic violence injunction based on allegations you believe are unfounded or exaggerated, understand that Florida law requires more than an uncorroborated hearsay statement to support an injunction, particularly when that statement comes from a child. This doesn’t mean the process will be easy or that allegations won’t be taken seriously, but it does mean you have important legal protections, and an experienced attorney can help you understand whether the evidence presented against you meets the legal standard Florida law requires.
4. Recognize That This Is a Deeply Sensitive Area Requiring Experienced Legal Guidance
Cases involving allegations of domestic violence connected to children are among the most emotionally difficult and legally complex matters in Florida family law. Whether you’re the petitioner or the respondent, working with an attorney who has genuine experience navigating these sensitive cases, and who understands both the substantive legal standards and the emotional weight involved, is essential.
5. Understand How This Intersects With Broader Custody and Parenting Matters
Domestic violence injunctions often arise alongside, or become deeply intertwined with, broader custody, timesharing, and parental responsibility disputes. An attorney with experience across the full range of Florida family law issues can help you understand how an injunction matter, and the evidentiary requirements involved, might affect other aspects of your case, and can help ensure your interests, and your child’s best interests, are properly represented throughout.
6. Don’t Assume an Allegation Alone Will Automatically Result in an Injunction
While Florida’s domestic violence injunction process is designed to be accessible and responsive to genuine safety concerns, Roberts v. Roberts is an important reminder that the process still requires legally sufficient evidence. This is true whether you’re evaluating your own case as a potential petitioner, or trying to understand the legal landscape as a respondent facing allegations you believe aren’t adequately supported.
7. Work With an Attorney Who Can Navigate Both the Emotional and Legal Complexity of These Cases
These cases require attorneys who can provide both technical legal expertise, understanding evidentiary rules, hearsay exceptions, and appellate standards, and the sensitivity necessary to handle deeply personal, often painful family circumstances. A Florida divorce attorney experienced in domestic violence matters can help you navigate both dimensions effectively.
Why Evidentiary Standards Matter in Every Family Law Case
Roberts v. Roberts illustrates a broader theme that runs throughout Florida family law: significant decisions, whether they involve a domestic violence injunction, marital asset division, or parenting arrangements, need to be grounded in legally sufficient evidence, not simply allegations or assumptions, however serious or well-intentioned. This principle protects the fairness and integrity of the entire family law system, for petitioners and respondents alike.
This is one of many reasons it’s essential to work with an experienced Tampa family law attorney who understands the evidentiary standards governing these sensitive cases, and who can help you navigate the process with both legal skill and genuine care for the difficult circumstances involved.
Why This Matters for Families in Hillsborough County
If you’re navigating a domestic violence injunction matter, particularly one involving allegations connected to a child, as part of a broader family law situation in Hillsborough County, Roberts v. Roberts underscores the importance of understanding Florida’s evidentiary requirements, whether you’re seeking protection or responding to serious allegations. Working with an experienced attorney who understands both the legal standards and the sensitive nature of these cases can make a meaningful difference in how your matter is handled and resolved.
Let a Tampa Divorce Lawyer Guide You Through a Sensitive Domestic Violence Matter
Cases involving domestic violence injunctions and allegations connected to children require careful, experienced, and compassionate legal guidance. The team at The McKinney Law Group understands the legal standards governing these cases, including the evidentiary requirements clarified in Roberts v. Roberts, and we approach these sensitive matters with both the legal skill and the genuine care they require.
If you’re searching for a Tampa divorce lawyer who can guide you through a domestic violence injunction matter with both expertise and compassion, we encourage you to reach out for a consultation. Let us help you navigate this difficult situation with the careful, thorough representation you and your family deserve.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can a domestic violence injunction be granted based solely on a child’s out-of-court statements? Based on Roberts v. Roberts, generally no. Florida law requires corroborating evidence to support a child’s hearsay statement before it can serve as the sole basis for a domestic violence injunction.
2. Does this ruling mean children’s reports of abuse aren’t taken seriously by Florida courts? No. Florida law provides specific mechanisms for considering children’s statements in appropriate circumstances, and courts take allegations involving children’s safety very seriously. This ruling addresses a specific evidentiary requirement, corroboration, rather than suggesting children’s statements should be disregarded.
3. What counts as “corroborating evidence” in this context? Corroborating evidence is independent evidence, separate from the hearsay statement itself, that supports the truth of the allegations. This can include physical evidence, other witness testimony, professional evaluations, or other objective indicators supporting what’s been alleged.
4. What should I do if I’m seeking a domestic violence injunction and my case involves a child’s statements? Work with an experienced attorney to identify and gather any available corroborating evidence, and to understand whether specific statutory hearsay exceptions might apply to your situation, so your case is presented with the strongest possible evidentiary foundation.
5. What should I do if I’m facing an injunction based on allegations I believe aren’t adequately supported? Consult an experienced family law attorney promptly. Understanding whether the evidence against you meets Florida’s legal standards, including the corroboration requirement discussed in Roberts v. Roberts, is an important part of protecting your rights in this process.
6. How does a domestic violence injunction affect custody or parenting arrangements? Domestic violence injunctions can significantly affect timesharing, parental responsibility, and other custody-related issues in a related family law case. If you’re involved in both an injunction matter and a custody dispute, it’s important to work with an attorney who understands how these issues intersect.
7. Why is it important to work with an experienced attorney in a case like this? These cases involve both technical legal standards, such as hearsay rules and evidentiary requirements, and deeply sensitive, personal circumstances. An experienced attorney can help you navigate both the legal complexity and the emotional weight of these matters, whether you’re seeking protection or responding to serious allegations.
Damien McKinney is the Founding Partner of The McKinney Law Group Family & Divorce Lawyers, bringing nearly two decades of experience to complex marital and family law matters. He is licensed in both Florida and North Carolina and has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star by Super Lawyers.