PERSONAL INJURY | CHILD ABUSE | STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE
A groundbreaking appellate decision confirms that negligence claims related to childhood sexual abuse can be filed at any time. Consequently, survivors can pursue accountability against institutions that failed to protect them, regardless of how much time has passed.
Published: September 18, 2026
Case: D.L. v. Community Based Care of Brevard, Inc., et al.
Court: Fifth District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: February 13, 2026
The Applicable Law
Florida’s statute of limitations generally imposes strict filing deadlines. Under Florida Statutes Section 95.11(3)(a), general negligence claims faced a four-year deadline. However, the Legislature created a critical exception for child sexual battery victims.
Florida Statutes Section 95.11(9) states that an action related to an act constituting a sexual battery violation involving a victim under age 16 may be commenced at any time.
Key Legal Rule: Legal claims related to sexual battery against a child under 16 carry no statute of limitations deadline.
The critical question courts face is determining what types of claims qualify as being “related to” the sexual abuse.
What Happened in This Case
The plaintiff entered Florida’s foster care system in 2012 at age 12. The Department of Children and Families contracted with a community-based care organization, which subsequently contracted with a private foundation for foster home management.
In 2014, the plaintiff disclosed that another child molested her in the foster home. Despite these warnings, the foster parents took no protective action. Later in 2015, the plaintiff revealed that a foster parent also sexually battered her.
In 2023, the plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the care organization, the management foundation, and a foster parent. She alleged the entities failed to screen the foster home and failed to assess child safety.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the four-year negligence statute of limitations barred the suit. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action.
The Court’s Analysis
The Broad Meaning of “Related To”
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, focusing on the meaning of the phrase “related to” in Florida’s statute of limitations law. The court explained that this phrase “is a broad one” and simply means “connected in some way; having relationship to or with something else.”
The court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation from Morales v. Trans World Airlines, which defined “relating to” as meaning “to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.”
Key Distinction: Florida law does not require a “significant” connection – just that the claims have “a connection with” the alleged sexual battery.
No Limitation on Types of Claims
The appellate court rejected the defendants’ argument that only certain types of claims could be brought under the unlimited time provision. The court noted that Section 95.11(9) permits “an action” in broad terms, with no qualifier or limiting phrase.
As the court explained: “The statute simply permits ‘an action,’ which, in this context, simply means ‘[a] civil . . . judicial proceeding.'”
The court contrasted this with other subsections of the same statute that specifically limit claims to “Intentional Torts Based on Abuse” or “Intentional Torts Resulting in Death.” Since the Legislature knew how to limit the types of claims when it wanted to, the court concluded that the omission of such limiting language in subsection (9) was intentional.
Claims Against Non-Perpetrators Are Permitted
Significantly, the court clarified that the statute “does not limit a defendant against whom an action may be brought to only the perpetrator of the abuse.” The court cited previous Fourth District Court of Appeal decisions holding that “the language is broad enough to include a cause of action against a non-perpetrator if it is related to a sexual battery.”
Key Rule: Negligence claims against institutions, caregivers, or other third parties can be filed without time limits if they are connected to childhood sexual abuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue someone other than my abuser for childhood sexual abuse that happened years ago?
Yes, according to this court decision. If you were sexually abused as a child under 16, you can file negligence claims against institutions, caregivers, or other parties whose actions were connected to your abuse – even decades later. This includes claims against schools, foster care agencies, religious organizations, or other entities that may have failed to protect you.
What does “related to” sexual abuse mean for my potential case?
The court interpreted “related to” very broadly. Your negligence claim just needs to have “a connection with” the sexual abuse you suffered. This could include claims that defendants failed to properly screen caregivers, failed to supervise adequately, failed to respond to warning signs, or otherwise created conditions that allowed the abuse to occur.
Does this ruling apply to all types of legal claims?
Yes, the court specifically rejected arguments that only certain types of claims qualify. Whether your case sounds in negligence, intentional torts, or other legal theories, it can be filed without time limits as long as it’s connected to sexual battery that occurred when you were under 16.
What if the abuse happened a long time ago – can I still file a case?
Under this interpretation of Florida law, there is no time limit for filing claims related to childhood sexual abuse. The court emphasized that such actions “may be commenced at any time,” regardless of how many years have passed since the abuse occurred.
Do I need to sue the actual perpetrator to bring these claims?
No. The court made clear that you can bring claims against non-perpetrators – such as institutions, supervisors, or caregivers – as long as your claims are related to the sexual abuse you suffered as a child.
Moving Forward After Childhood Sexual Abuse
Cases involving childhood sexual abuse and institutional negligence are among the most complex and emotionally challenging areas of personal injury law. Survivors often face not only the trauma of their experiences but also the difficulty of gathering evidence from events that occurred years or decades ago.
This court decision represents a significant victory for survivors, clarifying that Florida law provides broad protection for those seeking accountability from institutions and individuals who failed in their duty to protect children. However, these cases require careful legal analysis to establish the necessary connections between the defendants’ conduct and the abuse that occurred.
At Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC, we understand the courage it takes to come forward and seek justice for childhood sexual abuse. Our experienced attorneys are committed to holding accountable those who failed to protect vulnerable children, whether they are foster care agencies, schools, religious organizations, or other institutions.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
D.L. v. Community Based Care of Brevard, Inc. d/b/a Brevard Family Partnership, The Devereux Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Devereux Florida, et. al., Case Nos. 5D2024-2975, 5D2024-3492, Fifth District Court of Appeal, February 13, 2026.
Applicable Statutes:
- Florida Statutes Section 95.11(9) (2022)
- Florida Statutes Section 95.11(3)(a) (2022)
- Florida Statutes Section 794.011
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is subject to change, and the application of legal principles varies depending on the specific facts of each case. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult a licensed Florida attorney. This post discusses legal concepts and principles addressed in the cited court opinion and context of that opinion. It is not intended to make any assertions about the truth of any allegations or evidence relating to any party to that case.
Citations & Sources
- D.L. v. Community Based Care of Brevard, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 5D2024-2975, 5D2024-3492 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 13, 2026)
- R.R. v. New Life Cmty. Church of CMA, Inc., 303 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 2020)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992)
- W.D. v. Archdiocese of Miami, Inc., 197 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Doe 1 v. Archdiocese of Miami, Inc., 360 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Baldwin v. Lab’y Corp. of Am., 396 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Source URL: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2484980/opinion/Opinion_2024-2975.pdf
