WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Court TV) —An appellate court heard arguments Thursday in the case of a man convicted of locking his adopted son in a windowless garage room, with defense attorneys arguing that evidence of prior abuse in Arizona unfairly prejudiced the jury and should never have been admitted at trial.
Timothy Ferriter sits in court during the first day of his trial on Oct. 3, 2023. (Court TV)
Tim Ferriter, 48, was sentenced to five years in prison in 2023 after a jury convicted him of aggravated child abuse, false imprisonment and child neglect for confining his teenage son in an 8-by-8-foot box in the family’s Palm Beach County garage for 45 days. The boy, known publicly only as “RF” to protect his identity, had no control over the lights or air conditioning and was forced to use a bucket as a toilet.
MORE | FL v. Timothy Ferriter: Boy in a Box Trial
During oral arguments before the Fourth District Court of Appeal on January 8, 2026, Ferriter’s appellate attorney Leonard Feuer argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing prosecutors to present extensive evidence about how Ferriter treated his son during the three years the family lived in Arizona before moving to Florida.
“The evidence of abuse in Arizona was so much more severe than the 45-day period in Palm Beach County,” Feuer said. “It was also unduly prejudicial, unfairly prejudicial, should never have been admitted.”
According to court records, the Arizona evidence included testimony that Ferriter smacked his son in the face, grabbed him by the neck, hit him with a jump rope or belt, and held him up against a wall. Ferriter’s daughter testified that she feared her father would kill her brother in Arizona and that she would hear sounds of slapping or hitting followed by her brother’s screams.
Feuer argued that the Arizona evidence became an “impermissible feature” of the trial, particularly when the state’s expert witness, Dr. Wade Myers, incorporated it into his testimony. The expert repeatedly stated that the son was in “solitary confinement for three years” and testified that the treatment constituted “torturous behavior” that could not be justified under any circumstances.
“Once you ring a bell, you just can’t undo it,” Feuer said.
The defense attorney also argued that Dr. Myers improperly testified about the ultimate issue of guilt by negating Ferriter’s defense theory that his actions constituted reasonable parental discipline of an out-of-control child. Feuer said the trial court prevented the defense’s own expert, Dr. Rapport, from offering similar opinions supporting the defense theory, creating an unfair imbalance.
Assistant Attorney General Rachel Goldbloom countered that the Arizona evidence was properly admitted because Ferriter’s primary defense was that his actions were a reasonable response to his son’s escalating and dangerous behavior.
“If that behavior is allowed in, and we’re looking at whether the defendant’s actions were malicious, neglectful or torturous, then we also need to have the full context of how he addressed the child’s behavior over that entire time period,” Goldbloom said.
She argued that the Arizona evidence showed “a continuing course of action, not a desperate, last-minute, isolated attempt to address certain problematic behavior.”
Timothy Ferriter looks into a Ring camera inside the 8-by-8-foot garage room where he confined his adopted son for 45 days in Palm Beach County. Prosecutors presented approximately eight hours of Ring video footage during Ferriter’s 2023 trial. (Court TV)
Goldbloom emphasized that the state focused the majority of its evidence on what occurred in Florida, presenting approximately eight hours of Ring video footage from the garage room. By contrast, the state presented no video evidence from Arizona, relying only on testimony from the victim and his sister.
“When you look at the actual conduct that took place and what the state was presenting, the confinement was similar,” Goldbloom said. “The room he was in was similar, the amount of time and the treatment, the fact that there were locks outside the door, that there was a light that only the parents could control, that there was no bathroom, that the majority of the meals were in the room.”
The appellate panel appeared troubled by the discretion question. One judge noted that while reviewing the case, they kept thinking, “that was the call the trial judge made,” making it difficult to find an abuse of discretion.
Feuer also challenged the trial court’s decision to grant a downward departure in sentencing. While Ferriter faced up to 40 years in prison, the judge sentenced him to five years, citing the pressures of parenting and Ferriter’s struggle with how to discipline his child.
The state cross-appealed, arguing that the downward departure was improper because it contradicted the jury’s verdict, which found that Ferriter’s actions were intentional, deliberate and planned. Goldbloom argued that the trial court’s own comments at sentencing undermined the basis for the departure, noting that the judge described Ferriter’s actions as “methodical, calculated, planned” and said Ferriter showed no remorse.
Leonard Feuer argues Timothy Ferriter’s appeal before Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal on January 8, 2026. (Court TV)
Feuer defended the departure, arguing that a trial court can base a downward departure on mitigating factors not specifically enumerated in Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code.
“The court’s observation that this was not a run-of-the-mill child abuse case reflects the court’s understanding that Mr. Ferriter’s actions were in response to a situation he just did not know how to address,” Feuer said.
At Ferriter’s original sentencing hearing, both he and his son addressed the court. An emotional Ferriter told the judge, “I have failed.” The victim, now 16, told his father that he still loved him but described being locked up as “dehumanizing” and “like genocide.”
Ferriter’s wife, Tracy Ferriter, was charged with the same offenses but accepted a plea deal that allowed her to avoid jail time. She was sentenced to 10 years of probation and 300 hours of community service.
The appellate court did not issue a ruling from the bench. A written decision is expected in the coming months.
This story was generated with the assistance of AI using information gathered and verified by a human journalist. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy before publication.
