STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DAVID PINGREE, PETITIONERS,
v.
PHILIP G. NOURSE, AS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 sought a writ of prohibition against a circuit court judge who ordered the Department to personally confine a juvenile in a secure facility and guard her. The court granted prohibition, holding that trial courts lack jurisdiction to direct specific placement and treatment decisions for juveniles committed to the Department.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to direct specific placement and treatment of an individual committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The court may not manage the details of how the Department will attempt to rehabilitate juveniles.
[1] A court lacks jurisdiction to direct specific placement and treatment of an individual committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
[2] Prohibition is an appropriate remedy when a court exceeds its jurisdiction by attempting to manage the details of how a state agency will rehabilitate juveniles.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 court had no jurisdiction to direct a specific placement and treatment of an individual committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.”
States the core holding that trial courts cannot dictate how the Department places and treats committed juveniles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 13-year-old juvenile had run away from home or escaped from HRS facilities on at least eleven occasions. The trial court ordered the Secretary of He…
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 Administrative Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeks prohibition. Although this case is now moot, we shall consider it because of its effect upon the administration of the juvenile system and on similar cases.
The trial court ordered the Secretary of Health and Rehabilitative Services to personally confine the juvenile to a secure facility and guard her, if necessary. The court had no jurisdiction to direct a specific placement and treatment of an individual committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. State ex rel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe, 291 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Also see Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division of Mental Health, South Florida State Hospital v. State, 338 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
We note, however, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services did place the juvenile in question in the facility ordered by the trial court, and a short time thereafter advised the trial court that the juvenile had again escaped. This juvenile is 13 years old and has run away from home or escaped from HRS facilities on at least eleven occasions. Both the trial court and HRS have exhibited extreme frustration over these unfortunate events. While the juvenile was in the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, she most recently escaped while on an off-campus visit with her parents. We wish we had the answers. We do not. Prohibition is granted because the court does not have the jurisdiction to manage the details of how the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services will attempt to rehabilitate juveniles.
PROHIBITION GRANTED.
DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
The Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. I.C., 742 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Schreiber, 561 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Nor can the court order DCF to provide specific treatment or placement of a child. See State, ex rel. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Nourse, 437 So. 2d 221, 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). All of these are executive agency decisions which implicate policy development and prioritizing of funding. These matters are not assigned to the judiciary to resolve. Nevertheless, the juvenile court can act to protect chi…
-
State v. Schreiber, 561 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ties. Amidon; Florida Export. The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Marion Correctional Inst. v. Kriegel, 522 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). In State ex rel. HRS v. Nourse, 437 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this Court granted a petition for writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to direct specific placement and treatment of a juvenile committed to HRS, since the court did not have jurisdiction to ma…
-
Henry & Rilla White Found., Inc. v. Migdal, 720 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…Department of Juvenile Justice v. E.W., 704 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. State, 616 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); State ex rel. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Nourse, 437 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). . Although we were advised at oral argument that the case may now be moot, we have issued this opinion because of its effect upon the administration of the juvenile justice system and on similar cases. See Nourse, 437 So. 2d 22…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Sepe, 291 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Empresa Guatemalteca de Aviacion v. Ader, 338 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)