STORAGE NAME: h6009.CJS
DATE: 3/24/2023
March 24, 2023
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT
The Honorable Paul Renner
Speaker, The Florida House of Representatives
Suite 420, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Re: HB 6009 - Representative Duggan
Relief/Michael Barnett/Department of Children and Families
THIS IS A CLAIM FOR $296,400 BASED ON A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AGAINST THE DEPARTME NT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FOR INJURIES AND
DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE DEPARTMENT’S
NEGLIGENCE WHEN D.B, D.B., AND B.B. WERE
MURDERED AND R.B. WA S SHOT IN THEIR HOME BY
THEIR STEP-FATHER, PATRICK DELL, ON SEPTEMBER
27, 2010.
FINDINGS OF FACT: Michael Barnett is the father of Daniel Barnett (age 10), Diane
Barnett (age 13), Bryan Barnett (age 14), and Ryan Barnett
(age 15), children he had with Ms. Natasha Whyte-Dell. Ms.
Whyte-Dell (mother) was married to Mr. Patrick Dell (Dell) on
October 5, 2006, and shared a home with him, the four Barnett
children, another child of Ms. Whyte-Dell (Jevon Nelson, age
11), and Dell’s 2 young children (ages 1 and 3). Michael
Barnett the mother split custody of their four children with the
children living part-time with the mother and part-time with the
father. Dell and the mother lived with the aforementioned
children in a home in Riviera Beach, Florida during their
relationship. The mother filed a petition for dissolution of
marriage on September 10, 2008, but the ma tter was
voluntarily dismissed on February 3, 2009. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 2
History of Domestic Disputes
Dell and the mother had an extensive history of domestic
disputes from 2007 through 2010. From 2007-2010 the Riviera
Beach Police Department (RBPD) responded to the Dell home
thirty-four times. Of those 34 calls, at least 11 involved
domestic disputes with the children present. One call log entry
from the RBPD stated that the operator could hear the teenage
son in the background during a domestic dispute on March 16,
2008.
The mother filed two separate petitions for injunction for
protection against domestic violence against Dell; one in 2008
and the second in May of 2010. In the petition for injunction
from 2008, the mother alleged that Dell was physically and
verbally abusive to her in front of the children and while the
children were present in the home. In the 2008 petition, the
mother stated that she feared for her life and her children’s
lives, and provided details illustrating how the oldest child,
Ryan, had tried to intervene in her defense. The mother further
wrote that “she do[es] not know what my husband will do next.”
The court granted the injunction and the matter was disposed
of on April 17, 2008.
The mother filed a second petition for an injunction for the
protection against domestic violence against Dell on May 18,
2010. In the 2010 petition the mother explained that Dell had
been living in his car in front of the house for approximately one
month and had been reported being seen in public attempting
to buy a gun. In the petition, the mother again told the court that
she was in fear for her safety and the safety of her children.
The mother stated in the petition that Dell had told her “her last
days are going to be bitter.” The court granted a temporary
injunction against Dell until November 28, 2010.
Of particular note is an incident which occurred on December
20, 2009, when the police responded to the home of Ms.
Shawana Habersham, a close longtime friend of the mothers.
Dell approached Ms. Habersham’s residence while the mother
and Ms. Habersham were outside. Dell charged at the mother
with a knife and the two women retreated inside of the home
and locked the door. Dell continued to threaten the mother and
told the mother “your family is going to cry today…you will be
going to the morgue.” Dell proceeded to slash all four of the
mother’s tires and carved an “x” into Ms. Habersham’s
driveway. In her statement to police following this incident, the
mother reported that Dell’s threats and violence had been
increasing and that she was, again, in fear for her life and the
lives of her children. Dell was arrested and charged with
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal mischief
for his actions.
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) received an SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 3
abuse report regarding the December 20, 2009 incident on
January 26, 2010. The DCF abuse report alleged that Dell
accused the mother of having an affair with the neighbors and
had threatened the mother and another female with a knife.
The abuse report further alleged that Dell had become
increasingly threatening, violent, and aggressive towards the
mother and the frequency of domestic disputes had increased
in the home. The report alleged that the children were present
for many of the physical and verbal altercations between the
mother and Dell.
George Shahood-DCF Child Protective Investigator
In response to the abuse report and the allegations contained
therein, DCF opened an investigation into the welfare of the
children. Mr. George Shahood was assigned as the child
protective investigator responsible for investigating the report.
Mr. Shahood was hired as an investigator in August of 2009.
Prior to being hired by DCF, Mr. Shahood had not had any
work experience with children, had no experience in social
work, and had no training or education in social work,
psychology, or any area related to social investigations and the
well-being of children. In fact, Mr. Shahood’s degree was in
Sports Administration. Mr. Shahood had been unemployed for
approximately two years preceding his employment with DCF.
According to Mr. Shahood, his training with DCF consisted of
being assigned a mentor investigator and attending about a
month of classes or “analytical book training” to supplement the
on the job experience. By Mr. Shahood’s own account, he did
not receive his own, independent caseload until the end of
2009.
Mr. Shahood was involved in his own domestic dispute in
September of 2010, when he was arrested for felony battery on
a pregnant female, his then-fiancée. He pled no contest to the
offense. According to the records provided, Mr. Shahood was
relieved of his position with DCF in February of 2011.
According to the materials reviewed, DCF did not take any
steps to review or evaluate Mr. Shahood’s caseload in light of
his own domestic violence towards his fiancée. Mr. Shahood
worked as a Child Protective Investigator with DCF for
approximately 18 months in total.
By Mr. Shahood’s own account, he estimated having worked
around 120 cases during his employment as an investigator. In
all of his cases, Mr. Shahood did not once find evidence
supporting the removal of a child or children from a home.
From his own testimony, Mr. Shahood explained that he was
glad he never had to remove a child from a home. In his
deposition, he stated that those cases involved significantly
more paperwork, time, and court appearances.
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 4
Mr. Shahood’s Investigation of Dell and the Mother
In response to the DCF abuse report, Mr. Shahood
commenced his investigation into the allegations of violence
and the welfare of the children. During his investigation, Mr.
Shahood conducted a “grid check” of the Whyte-Dell residence,
which included reviewing the calls into law enforcement. Mr.
Shahood spoke with the mother and attempted to speak with
Dell, but Dell refused to discuss the allegations with him.
Mr. Shahood did not attempt to obtain any police records and
did not speak to anyone at the state attorney’s office regarding
the arrest of Dell during the December 20, 2009 incident. Mr.
Shahood did not speak with Ms. Habersham, who was present
at the time of the December 20, 2009 incident, nor did he
attempt to speak to any neighbors, friends, or family members
other than Dell and the children. Mr. Shahood closed his
investigation after only 30 days and found no threat to the
welfare of the children. Mr. Shahood’s only advice to the
mother and the children was to call 911 in case any future
domestic incidents occurred.
September 27, 2010
On September 27, 2010, at around 2:00 a.m., Dell entered the
home he had previously shared with the mother. Dell
proceeded to shoot the mother and five of the seven children in
the home. Dell did not shoot the two young children he had in
common with the mother and left them asleep in their room.
Dell murdered Daniel, Diane, and Bryan Barnett, Jevon Nelson,
and Natasha Whyte-Dell before exiting the home and turning
the gun on himself. Dell attempted to murder Ryan Barnett,
whom he shot in the throat and neck, but Ryan pretended to be
dead long enough for Dell to leave the room, after which Ryan
called 911.
LITIGATION HISTORY: Michael Barnett (Barnett), individually as natural father and
guardian of Ryan Barnett, and as the Personal Representative
of the Estates of Daniel Barnett, Diane Barnett, and Bryan
Barnett, filed a complaint for wrongful death and personal injury
damages against DCF. Barnett alleged that DCF, as the
agency charged with the duty to ensure the health, welfare, and
safety of children in Florida, was negligent in its capacity and
failed to ensure the safety and welfare of the Barnett children.
In its response to Barnett’s complaint, DCF raised the
affirmative defense of sovereign immunity and argued that it
was only responsible to pay a claim of the statutory maximums
(at the time in 2010) of $100,000 per person or $200,000 for
the entire incident. In response, Barnett argued that separate
and distinct shooting incidents occurred as to each individual
child and that the separate gunshots, in separate locations,
resulting in the death of four separate individuals, and the injury SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 5
to a fifth child were separate incidents or occurrences for the
purposes of recovery under sovereign immunity limits.
The trial judge agreed with Barnett’s interpretation, but the
Fourth District Court of Appeals (Fourth DCA) reversed the trial
court’s decision and strictly construing the sovereign immunity
statute. As such, the Fourth DCA held that all four murders as
well as Ryan’s injuries, were part of one single incident. The
case was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court where the
Court ultimately upheld the Fourth DCA’s decision.
Following the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, the parties
agreed to settle the case with a payment of the remaining cap
of $160,000 and with a specific consent agreement that an
additional amount of $296,400 would be entered in favor of
Barnett. However, the agreement was reached with the
understanding that Barnett would have to appeal to the
legislature through the claim bill process to recover the
additional agreed-upon amount.
CLAIMANT’S POSITION: Barnett argues that DCF was negligent in its capacity as the
agency overseeing and ensuring the welfare of Florida’s
children. Barnett alleges that DCF failed to adequately
investigate abuse allegations and negligently exposed his
children to a man who had previously threatened the children
and their mother and was known to law enforcement to be
dangerous and violent.
Barnett argued that DCF repeatedly ignored the clear and
obvious threats and danger presented by Dell because of his
repeated and improper association with the Barnett children.
RESPONDENT’S POSITION: DCF acknowledges that the 2010 shooting deaths of the
Barnett family were tragic. However, DCF argues that there
had only ever been one report involving Dell that was brought
to the agency’s attention. As such, DCF contends that it was
not negligent or responsible in any way for the deaths of the
Barnett children. DCF specifically argues that the sole
investigation into Dell took place eight months prior to the tragic
shooting and was not a foreseeable event. DCF argues that a
finding of negligence could create a precedent of an
unattainable standard in future investigations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Regardless of whether there is a jury verdict or settlement,
each claim bill is reviewed de novo in light of the elements of
negligence.
Duty
DCF has a duty to reasonably investigate, supervise, and
protect the welfare of children in the state. S. 415.103, F.S.,
requires DCF to establish and maintain a central abuse hotline SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 6
that receives abuse reports and creates standards for the
hotline that DCF must maintain. Upon receiving an abuse
report, DCF has a duty to properly investigate the allegations.
Breach
After reviewing the materials provided by both parties and
conducting a hearing on the matter, it is apparent that DCF did
not conduct a sufficient investigation into the allegations
included in the abuse report. By his own statements, Mr.
Shahood reported that he chose not to access police records or
contact the state attorney, and neglected to conduct even a
cursory investigation through collateral sources close to the
family. By his own admission, Mr. Shahood had access to the
police reports and call records and was authorized to speak
with friends, family, and neighbors, and chose not to, and
closed the investigation after only thirty days.
By his own admissions, Mr. Shahood stated that, based on his
experience, a pattern of threatening behavior and violence is
anything more than one incident, noting that had he been
aware of the 34 different calls to the home by RBPD and the
two domestic violence injunctions against Dell, he may have
deemed there to be a pattern or abusive behavior which would,
at the very least, possibly have warranted additional
investigation.
DCF was also negligent in its employment of Mr. Shahood.
Particularly, after Mr. Shahood, himself, had been arrested for
battery on his pregnant fiancée, DCF should have taken steps
to ensure there was no conflict of interest between his actions
and the actions he was tasked to investigate. DCF did no such
review. Further, Mr. Shahood had no experience relative to the
role of a child protective investigator when he was hired by
DCF.
Following the tragic murders, the regional director for DCF,
Perry Borman, admitted that the case was not handled
properly. Further, new processes were put into place so that
DCF now receives copies of any requests for injunctions filed
with the Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts. In his deposition,
Mr. Borman stated that he believed DCF (and Mr. Shahood)
could have been “more robust in our investigation.” He further
stated that it would have been imperative for the investigator to
do as many collateral interviews and contacts as possible.
Mr. Borman admitted that Mr. Shahood failed to access the
2008 injunction in his investigation and that it would have been
appropriate for him, as the investigator, to have accessed that
record. On September 28, 2010, Mr. Borman stated publicly
that there were points in the investigation that could have and
should have been conducted better and investigated more fully.
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 7
In response to being asked what went wrong in the Barnett
matter, Mr. Borman, the Southeast Regional Director of DCF at
the time, stated that “the agency could have taken over half
dozen steps to guarantee the family’s safety.”
Causation
The most difficult aspect of this matter is whether DCF’s breach
was the cause of the tragic loss of life for the Barnett children
and the injuries sustained by Ryan Barnett. It is impossible to
say whether a more robust investigation by DCF would have
saved the Barnett children. However, it is important to
emphasize that a more comprehensive investigation - not an
overly intrusive or detailed investigation - but simply a better
cursory investigation of the records available to Mr. Shahood,
would have alerted the agency to the history of domestic
disputes and abuse.
It is not a stretch to believe that, had Mr. Shahood reviewed
even just the police records, he would have had evidence
demonstrating a pattern of abuse and an increase in
threatening and abusive behavior by Dell. As such, he would
have, and should have, continued the investigation, which may
likely have resulted in protective measures for the safety and
wellbeing of the Barnett children.
The most cursory of reviews of the records available, but not
accessed, by Mr. Shahood would have triggered the need for
further investigation under DCF’s policies surrounding
threatened harm, maltreatment of family, failure to protect the
children, and an overall escalation in violence by Dell.
Based on the evidence in the record, I find that the Claimant
has proven that DCF’s negligence was a proximate cause that
led to the deaths and injuries to the Barnett children. DCF
should have known that a man with such an extensive history
of threatening and abusive behavior would pose a threat to the
children living in the home. This case was more than a tragic
accident. It is reasonably foreseeable that, following a proper
investigation, DCF would have taken steps to protect the
Barnett children from Dell.
Damages
There is no doubt that Michael Barnett, as the father to Daniel,
Diane, and Bryan Barnett, suffered an incomprehensible loss.
Further, Ryan Barnett suffered not only the tragic loss of his
siblings and mother, but suffered significant injuries himself
which required intensive medical and psychological treatment.
In Claimant’s filings, he has posited that a reasonable estimate
of the case’s value is in excess of $8,000,000 based on the
loss of life and extent of physical and emotional damage. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 8
By stark contrast, Claimant is only seeking to be compensated
for the settled amount of $296,400. Had this matter proceeded
to a jury trial, the awarded damages would have likely been
significantly higher, closer to the $8 million estimate.
ATTORNEY’S/
LOBBYING FEES:
If the claim bill passes, the attorney fee will not exceed
$74,100, and the lobbying fee will not exceed $14,820.
Outstanding costs are $2,837.41.
RECOMMENDATION : Based on the evidence presented, I recommend that House Bill
6009 be reported FAVORABLY.
Respectfully submitted,
SARAH R. MATHEWS
House Special Master
cc: Representative Duggan, House Sponsor
Senator DiCeglie, Senate Sponsor
Jacqueline Moody, Senate Special Master