WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6511

Relief/L.P./Department of Children and Families

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Demi Busatta

HB 6511 would authorize payment of a $28 million judgment against Florida DCF for negligent investigation in L.P.'s case, using state funds; the bill died in the 2025 session.

Died in Budget Committee
#(claimsbills)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6511

Summary — HB 6511 (2025)

Relief/L.P./Department of Children and Families

Purpose and intent

HB 6511 is a claims (relief) bill that sought legislative approval to satisfy a contested $28,000,000 judgment awarded to L.P., a minor, against the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). The judgment arose from a jury finding that DCF was negligent in its investigation after a child abuse report, and that negligence contributed to catastrophic injuries inflicted on L.P. by her mother. The bill’s purpose was to authorize payment (relief) to L.P. to resolve that judgment against the state.

Key facts and basis for the claim

  • Claimant: L.P., a minor. Amount: $28,000,000.
  • Underlying events (as summarized in the Special Master’s Final Report):
    • On June 26, 2015, L.P.’s mother, Ashley Parker, sent a video with apparent suicide-related content and instructions for care of her daughter.
    • A family member contacted Sarasota Police for a welfare check. Officers visited, spoke with Ms. Parker and L.P., and concluded no crime or suicide had occurred at that time.
    • A responding officer (a mandatory reporter) called the state child-abuse hotline and reported the video, concerns from relatives, and that Ms. Parker had recently been Baker Acted (mental-health emergency).
    • The hotline routed the report to DCF’s Sarasota office. The matter was designated as an “immediate response” case.
    • According to the report, DCF investigators (CPIs) did not speak with the reporting officer, and a CPI did not leave a voicemail request for information despite the officer being available.
    • Less than 24 hours after DCF’s determination that there was no “imminent danger,” Ms. Parker stabbed L.P. 14 times, causing life‑threatening injuries (including disembowelment).
    • A jury later found DCF negligent and entered the $28,000,000 judgment that prompted this claims bill.

What the bill would have done

  • Authorize payment to L.P. (or otherwise provide legislative relief) to satisfy or address the $28,000,000 judgment arising from the negligence finding against DCF. (The Special Master’s report describes the contested claim and facts supporting the asserted liability; the bill functioned as the legislative vehicle to resolve that judgment against the state.)

Who would be affected

  • Primary beneficiary: L.P., the injured minor and judgment creditor.
  • State of Florida: would be responsible for the appropriation or other mechanism to satisfy the judgment, impacting state expenditures (a $28 million fiscal exposure).
  • Florida Department of Children and Families: subject of the judgment and potential operational, policy, and training scrutiny stemming from the underlying facts; the case may prompt internal reviews or reforms though the bill itself is for relief, not policy change.
  • Taxpayers: indirect fiscal impact if the judgment were paid from state funds.

Procedural history and status

  • Introduced: January 24, 2025.
  • Early committee activity: Referred to Judiciary, Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, and Budget Committee. Favorable with CS by Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee (March 20, 2025).
  • Subsequent actions: Referred to Budget Committee (March 24, 2025). Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration (May 3, 2025).
  • Final status: Died in Budget Committee (June 16, 2025).

Observations / implications

  • As a claims bill, HB 6511 did not change substantive child-welfare law but sought legislative authorization to resolve a court judgment against the state.
  • Passage would have required a budgetary appropriation or other funding mechanism; its failure in the Budget Committee means the judgment was not resolved via this legislative vehicle in the 2025 session.
  • The Special Master’s report documents procedural and communication breakdowns between law enforcement and DCF investigators, issues likely to inform administrative reviews even absent legislative relief.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.