Major FL Court: Soccer Coach in Position of ‘Familial or Custodial Authority’

January 14, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal held that a soccer coach accused of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation on a child was in a ‘position of familial or custodial authority’ for purposes of enhancing his prison sentence.

In Florida, someone being in a position of familial or custodial authority to a victim can lead to a significantly lengthier prison sentence if they are found guilty of sex offenses (such as sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority). 

For someone to be proven guilty of sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority on a minor (e.g. someone under 18 years old), the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant engaged in an act that constituted sexual battery on the victim
• At the time, the victim was a minor 
• At the time, the defendant was in a position of familial or custodial authority to the victim

Sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority is a first-degree, PBL felony in Florida. This means it is punishable by up to life in prison.

The impact of the “familial or custodial authority” enhancement is especially noticeable if the victim is between the ages of 12 and 17. 

If an adult (18+) engages in sexual activity that the alleged victim consented to (not legally, but was found to be a willing participant in the sexual activity), this is usually considered lewd or lascivious battery or lewd or lascivious molestation if the victim is 12 to 15. If the victim is 16 or 17, it is considered unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.

All of the above offenses are second-degree felonies, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. However, if the defendant was in a position of familial or custodial authority, this automatically becomes sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority – regardless of if the victim was a willing participant (punishable by life in prison).

A common question in these cases is: how does the State know when a defendant is in a position of familial or custodial authority? Sometimes, this is quite obvious – as the defendant is a parent or close adult relative charged with the offense.

But in other cases, this is not quite as clear. For example, Florida courts have previously held that teachers are in a position of familial or custodial authority under state law (Fla. Stat. 794.011(8)) during the school year and while on school premises. 

However, if the teacher was off school grounds when the sexual activity occurred and school was not in session when the alleged sexual activity occurred, they are no longer considered to be in a position of familial or custodial authority. Hallberg v. State, 649 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1994)

For a defendant to be considered in a position of familial or custodial authority, at least one of the following must have been true at the time of the offense (Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)): 

• They maintained a “close relationship” with the alleged child victim or other children of the specified age (such as a school employee)
• They lived in the same household as the alleged child victim

In some cases, someone may not “clearly” be in a position of familial or custodial authority (e.g. a parent or a teacher at school). One such case that a Florida court heard involved a family friend who worked part-time as a soccer coach of the child victim’s brother.

Let’s take a look at that case – Oliver v. State, 977 So.2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) – and what it means for defendants challenging their designation as a person in familial or custodial authority under Florida law in sex crime cases.

KEY CASE: Oliver v. State, 977 So.2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) 

In Oliver, the defendant (Oliver) was charged with six counts of sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority, and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation. He was found guilty on all charges.

Oliver initially worked as a part-time soccer coach to the victim’s brother. Over tim, Oliver grew closer to the brother’s family, including his sisters (the victims in the case).

At trial, both victims testified that Oliver was “like a father figure” to them, as he frequently was present in their lives and playing with them. Both also said that they trusted and confided in him, including about the fact that their father had recently died and the traumatic impact that had. The victims would also have “sleepovers” at Oliver’s house.

Oliver was alleged to have had seven total sexual encounters with the sisters – three with one, and four with the other. This served as the basis for the seven charges. Oliver was convicted on all seven counts and sentenced to prison.

At trial, Oliver moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority charges. He argued that the evidence did not support a finding that he was in a position of familial or custodial authority to the victims at the time of the crimes. 

The trial judge denied the MJOA request. On appeal to Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida), Oliver again argued that he was not in a position of familial or custodial authority to the victims. 

However, the 5th DCA disagreed – affirming Oliver’s convictions. The 5th DCA began by noting the Florida Supreme Court’s definition of “person in a position of familial or custodial authority” (State v. Rawls, 649 So. 2d 1350 (1994)):

“Consanguinity and affinity are strong indicia of a familial relationship but are not necessary. Also, the defendant and victim need not reside in the same home. The relationship must be one in which there is a recognizable bond of trust with the defendant, similar to the bond that develops between a child and her grandfather, uncle, or guardian. Where an individual legitimately exercises parental-type authority over a child or maintains custody of a child on a regular basis, a familial relationship may exist for purposes of the admissibility of collateral crimes evidence.”

Given the testimony of the victims, the 5th DCA concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Oliver’s relationship to them fit the above definition:

“This evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Oliver was in a position of familial or custodial authority. The girls looked up to Oliver as a father figure. They trusted and confided in him. Their own father was deceased and they were not close to their step-father. Thus, there was a recognizable bond of trust between Oliver and the girls similar to that of father and child.”

“In addition, the twins’ mother trusted Oliver enough to let them stay overnight at his home and go on vacation with him. Oliver was one of the girls’ soccer coaches. All of the incidents occurred at Oliver’s home at times when Oliver was alone with the girls or others were asleep. Thus, Oliver was in a position of custodial authority over the girls because they frequently stayed overnight with him and were alone with him at his house when the incidents occurred.”

Put simply, the 5th DCA ruled that even though Oliver’s only initial “relationship” to the victims was serving as their brother’s soccer coach, he developed a “recognizable bond of trust” with the victims (similar to a father and child) at the time the abuse occurred. 

In sum, Oliver v. State, 977 So.2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) marks a significant development in Florida case law on the issue of defining “person in a position of familial or custodial authority.” Florida’s 5th DCA found that:

• The relationship between Oliver and the victims fit the definition of “familial or custodial authority” – as they slept at his home and he had a “recognizable bond of trust” with the victims similar to a parent and child
• Even though Oliver started as their brother’s soccer coach, he became someone that had custodial authority over the victims, including at the time the alleged offenses occurred 
• As a result, Oliver’s convictions and sentence were affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Oliver v. State, 977 So.2d 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), as it provides a clear framework for evaluating whether or not a defendant can properly be considered to be in a position of familial or custodial authority to an alleged victim.

If someone is charged in a case involving alleged sexual battery by a family member or person in custodial authority, it is critical to seek out experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to hefty fines and prison time. 

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share