Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 10, 2019. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D18-259 

Lower Tribunal No. 17-21552 

________________ 

Donovan Paul Hussey, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

Tatiana L. Lara, o/b/o J.H., 

Appellee. 

 An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Michaelle Gonzalez-Paulson, Judge. 

 Greg Rosenfeld (West Palm Beach), for appellant. 

 No Appearance for appellee. 

 

Before SALTER, SCALES and MILLER, JJ. 

 SALTER, J. 

 Donovan Paul Hussey appeals a final judgment of injunction for protection 

against sexual violence under section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2017). Mr. Hussey 
2 

is the brother-in-law of the appellee, Tatiana L. Lara. Mr. Hussey is the paternal 

uncle, and Ms. Lara is the mother, of the alleged victim, J.H., age nine at the time of 

an alleged incident. Ms. Lara, who is not an attorney, represented herself in the 

proceedings below and has not filed a brief or other response to Mr. Hussey’s brief 

in the appeal. 

 Ms. Lara did not witness the alleged acts, which were claimed to have 

occurred in Palm Beach County while the child was staying with her father’s sister 

(Mr. Hussey’s wife) and Mr. Hussey in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. Ms. Lara 

and J.H. lived in Miami-Dade County. 

 At the hearing on Ms. Lara’s petition, Ms. Lara was the only witness. The 

child did not testify and there was no attempt to introduce any out-of-court statement 

from her under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2017), as an alleged child 

victim. The trial court sustained hearsay objections to any testimony by Ms. Lara 

about what J.H. allegedly told her. Mr. Hussey’s attorney advised the Court that 

Ms. Lara had made a criminal report regarding the alleged incident to the police and 

State Attorney’s Office in Palm Beach County, and he invoked his client’s Fifth 

Amendment right not to testify. 

 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered a permanent 

restraining order, indefinite in duration, finding Ms. Lara credible in her effort to 

protect her child. This appeal followed. 
3 

 Analysis 

 We are constrained to reverse the final order because there was insufficient 

admissible evidence to support it. To support granting an injunction under section 

784.046, Florida Statutes, a petitioner must prove the statutory elements by 

competent, substantial evidence. Schutt v. Alfred, 130 So. 3d 772, 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2014). The “evidentiary requirements present in section 784.046(4)(a)1. [state] that 

the petitioner must be an eyewitness, provide direct physical evidence, or provide 

an eyewitness affidavit to the sexual battery, to obtain an injunction for protection.” 

Caldwell v. Caldwell, 257 So. 3d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, Ms. 

Lara did not present any such evidence. 

 In reaching this result, and taking care to express no opinion regarding the 

allegations or merits of Ms. Lara’s claims on behalf of her daughter, we comment 

briefly on the issue of access to counsel in cases like this one, heard daily in domestic 

violence divisions of the circuit court, and in the appeals from the rulings in those 

cases. The issues could hardly be more significant—the allegations, proceedings, 

and results substantially affect the long-term physical and emotional health of the 

parties and their families. 

 There are willing legal service groups and pro bono attorney volunteers 

willing to assist parties on either side of the trial court petitions or in any resulting 

appeals. Yet we continue to see unrepresented parties in such cases, and our Court 
4 

is not alone in that respect. See Mitchell v. Brogden, 249 So. 3d 781, 783 n. 2 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2018) (Makar, J., dissenting) (noting the pitfalls encountered by selfrepresented, non-attorney litigants in protective injunction cases). We urge nonprofit legal services providers, the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice, 

The Florida Bar, and our colleagues in the judiciary to do what they can to assure 

that pro se parties in these cases have been made aware of the opportunities for legal 

assistance even if they are unable to afford private counsel. 

 Reversed; final judgment of injunction vacated.