IN RE THE INTEREST OF T.A.J., A CHILD. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appeals orders imposing $20 reimbursements for judicial labor caused by its failure to attend a juvenile dispositional hearing and failure to comply with an order to facilitate attendance of certain persons. The court reverses, holding that court fees against the department are statutorily prohibited and any fines were improperly imposed without statutory authorization or proper contempt procedures.
The court fees are invalid because section 39.19, Florida Statutes prohibits the imposition of court fees against the department. Any fines were also improperly imposed because chapter 39 contains no statutory provision authorizing fines for failure to attend or facilitate attendance at a dispositional hearing, and if intended as contempt sanctions, the orders failed to follow the procedures outlined in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[1] A court cannot impose court fees against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
[2] A court may only impose a fine when the legislature has provided for such a fine for a statutory violation, or when a party has been held in contempt.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The imposition of court fees against the department is prohibited by section 39.19, Florida Statutes (1981).”
Establishes the primary basis for reversing the orders—statutory prohibition on court fees against the department
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe department failed to attend a juvenile's dispositional hearing. The department also failed to comply with a court order requiring it to facilitate…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (department) appeals from two orders entered during a juvenile proceeding. One order required the department to reimburse the “system” $20.00 for additional judicial labor caused by its failure to attend the juvenile’s dispositional hearing. The other order also required the department to reimburse the system $20.00 for additional judicial labor caused by the department’s failure to obey the court’s order requiring the department to facilitate the attendance of certain persons at the dispositional hearing or to file a written waiver of appearance with the court.
The department contends that the two orders are invalid regardless of whether they are construed as imposing court fees or as levying fines. We agree with the department’s contention and reverse.
The imposition of court fees against the department is prohibited by section 39.19, Florida Statutes (1981). See Division of Family Services, etc. v. M.V.W., 349 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and J.E.R. v. State, 317 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
If the charges are construed as fines, then the fines were improperly imposed. A court only has authority to impose a fine in two cases: first, where the legislature has provided for a fine for the violation of a statutory provision and second, where a party has been held in contempt. Here, chapter 39 contains no provisions for a fine for the failure to attend or to facilitate the attendance of another party at a disposi-tional hearing. And, if the fines were imposed as sanctions for contempt, then the orders were invalid for failure to follow the procedures outlined in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See generally State ex rel. Coody v. Muszynski, 404 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Porter v. Williams, 392 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The department also challenges the validity of the underlying order requiring the department to facilitate the attendance of certain persons at the dispositional hearing or to file a written waiver of appearance with the court. This issue has been disposed of in State ex rel. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Salfi, 432 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
REVERSED.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. J.L.P. and K.L.M., 435 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…duties to assist him in preparing for dispositional hearings in juvenile matters. The propriety of these orders, as applied to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has been addressed in In the Interest of T.A.J. v. State of Florida, 432 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1983), and State ex rel. Dept. of Health, etc. v. Salfi, 432 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1983). We do not have the benefit of a transcript of the hearing at which Judge Salfi determined the cost of his additional labor. We know of no…
-
State v. Salfi, 432 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…t. The order further contains a provision for sanctions. We have previously held that court fees may not be charged against the department pursuant to section 39.19. In re: The Interest of T.A.J. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 432 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Whether the imposition of the other sanctions would be proper would depend on the circumstances of the particular case. We cannot conclude that their inclusion would invalidate the order. As to the department, the order is not…
-
W.S.M., JR. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 692 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…HRS in a dependency proceeding. We agree with the Second District’s reading of J.E.R. and M.V.W. for the narrow proposition that “imposition of court fees against the department is prohibited by section 39.19, Florida Statutes (1981).” In re T.A.J., 432 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)(emphasis supplied). As the A.F. court noted, “it is not expressly stated in those cases [J.E.R. and M.V.W.] what costs had been assessed.” 528 So. 2d at 89. Section 39.414, Florida Statutes (1993), in no way disallows the a…
Authorities Cited
- Porter v. Volie A. Williams, Jr., 392 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Div. of Fam. Servs. (now Soc. & Econ. Services) Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. In the Interest of M. V. W., 349 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State ex rel. Franklin C. Coody v. The Honorable Bernard C. Muszynski, 404 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- J. E. R. v. State, 317 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Perrin Shappley, Jr. v. State, 317 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- State v. Salfi, 432 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)