North FL’s Highest Court Defines ‘Familial or Custodial Authority’ for Sexual Battery Purposes

April 10, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled a defendant who “cultivated a close relationship” with the victim was in a position of familial or custodial authority, despite the fact that he was not related to her by blood and did not live with her.

CASE: Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)

Charge(s): Sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority

Outcome: Conviction AFFIRMED, as the defendant was in a position of custodial authority to the victim at the time of the offense.

In Florida, sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority (Fla. Stat. 794.011(8)) is a very serious felony. For someone to be guilty, 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 (under age 18)
• 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 – meaning it is punishable by up to life in prison. A sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority conviction may also carry thousands of dollars in fines – and requirement to register as a sexual predator. For more, click here.

The impact of the “familial or custodial authority” enhancement is especially notable if a victim is between the ages of 12 and 17. State v. Rife, 733 So.2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)

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.

Note: If someone is found guilty of (or pleads guilty/no contest to) sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority, they cannot avoid the registry even if they meet all of the Romeo and Juliet law’s statutory criteria to file a petition. For more on Florida’s Romeo and Juliet law, click here.

In the event that someone is charged with sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority, they may be wondering whether a downward departure sentence is possible (e.g. a sentence below the CPC scoresheet guidelines). 

Though this is VERY RARE, mitigation on the grounds that a victim was a “willing participant” may still be used – not as a legal defense, but as a basis for a downward departure. This was first recognized in State v. Rife, 733 So.2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) – and affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court in 2001.

If a person or their loved one is charged with sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority in Florida, they may be wondering how “position of familial or custodial authority” is defined. As this is not explicitly written into Fla. Stat. 794.011(8), Florida’s courts have addressed this issue for decades on a case-by-case basis. For more, click here.

In the event that someone believes they are being wrongly classified as a person in a position of familial or custodial authority, they may file a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge as a matter of law – or move for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) at trial on the basis that they were NOT in a position of familial/custodial authority at the time of the alleged offense.

If a trial judge is presented with such a motion to dismiss/MJOA, they have a few options:

• Deny the motion outright (e.g. if the judge believes the State permissibly classified the defendant as a familial/custodial authority figure)
• Partially grant the motion, reducing the charge to first-degree felony sexual battery (up to 30 years in prison) if the defendant was between 12 and 17 years old and does NOT seem to have been a willing participant in the conduct
• Partially grant the motion and reduce the charge to lewd or lascivious battery (up to 15 years in prison, second-degree felony) on the basis that the defendant was not a person in a position of familial/custodial authority AND the victim appears to have been a willing participant (e.g. testified to this) but could not legally consent 
• Grant the motion and dismiss all charges (VERY unlikely, only if there is no competent, substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could conclude the conduct even happened)

Note: A motion to “reduce” the charge will never be granted if the victim was under 12 at the time of the offense, as this is automatically capital sexual battery if sexual penetration or union occurred. For more, click here.

All of this hinges upon the definition of a “person in a position of familial or custodial authority.” So, what is this definition, according to Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court (Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal)?

The case that defines the scope of “familial or custodial authority” in Tallahassee and North FL was decided by the 1st DCA in 1986. Let’s take a look at that case – Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) – and discuss what it means for those charged with sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority.

KEY CASE: Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)

In Stricklen, the defendant (Stricklen) was convicted of one count of sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority, with the victim being between 12 and 17 years old at the time of the offense. According to the 1st DCA, the following facts emerged at trial:

• Stricklen cultivated a “very close relationship” to the victim over a considerable period of time, assuming care over him almost every weekend
• Stricklen did not reside in the victim’s home
• Stricklen was not related by blood to the victim

Stricklen moved to dismiss the charge before trial and in a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that he was NOT in a position of familial or custodial authority at the time the alleged sexual battery occurred. However, the trial judge denied Stricklen’s motion, and Stricklen was convicted.

On appeal to the 1st DCA, Stricklen claimed the trial judge erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss (or reduce) the charge. Stricklen again argued that he was not in a position of familial or custodial authority based on the “plain meaning of the statute.”

However, the 1st DCA disagreed. Applying Coleman v. State, 485 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the 1st DCA concluded that Stricklen was indeed in a position of custodial authority to the victim when the offense occurred, writing:

“According to Coleman, the legislature, by its use of the terms “familial or custodial,” “intended … to include within the statute’s proscriptions any person maintaining a close relationship with children of the ages specified in the statute, and who lived in the same household with such children.” Id., at 1345. Significantly, that interpretation was further clarified in footnote 2, in which we concluded that the legislature intended on a “broad basis” to protect minor children “from the predatory influences of older persons who establish close family-type ties with them…”

“Applying the Coleman interpretation to the instant case, we hold that the relationship that existed between Stricklen and the victim placed Stricklen in a position of familial or custodial authority. The testimony indicated that Stricklen had cultivated a very close relationship to the victim over a considerable period of time, assuming responsibility for his care practically every weekend. Although Stricklen did not reside in the victim’s home, as was the case in Coleman, we are persuaded that the circumstances were such as easily to characterize the relationship as one establishing “close family-type ties.” Again, drawing on the Coleman analysis, we reiterate “that the legislature has clearly manifested an intent to protect children who come under the dissolute influence of such persons, even in the absence of a showing of consanguinity or affinity.” Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for directed verdict.”

Put simply, because Stricklen frequently took care of the victim and had a “close family-type” tie to him at the time of the crime –the State permissibly classified him as someone in a position of familial or custodial authority. Thus, his conviction was AFFIRMED.

In sum, Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority – specifically on the issue of when someone is covered by the statute (e.g. if they are/are not entitled to dismissal of the charge). The 1st DCA found that:

• The victim was cared for by Stricklen every weekend
• Stricklen knew the victim for a long time and cultivated a “relationship of trust” between himself and the victim
• Even though the victim did not reside in Stricklen’s home, this was not a requirement (e.g. under Coleman v. State, 485 So.2d 1342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)) for someone to be guilty 
• Because he was permissibly classified as a person in a position of familial or custodial authority, Stricklen’s conviction was AFFIRMED (e.g. no reduction in the severity of the charge to simple sexual battery/lewd battery)

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Stricklen v. State, 504 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), as it clearly defines when a defendant is (and is not) covered by Florida’s sexual battery by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority statute (Fla. Stat. 794.011(8)). To learn more about the offense, click here.

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 criminal 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