M.P., A CHILD, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a contempt of court order against a minor for failure to pay restitution because the trial court failed to make the affirmative findings required under Faircloth v. Faircloth, and held that AFDC payments cannot be considered in assessing the minor's financial ability to pay restitution.
A trial court cannot hold a minor in contempt for failure to pay restitution without making the affirmative findings mandated by Faircloth v. Faircloth, and AFDC payments received for child care cannot be considered in assessing the minor's financial ability to comply with restitution orders.
[1] AFDC payments received for child care cannot be considered in assessing a minor's financial ability to comply with court-ordered restitution, as diversion of such public…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Diversion of such public-assistance payments to satisfy appellant's pre-existing restitution obligation would, of course, frustrate the legislative intent and purpose underlying the need for such financial assistance.”
Court's reasoning for excluding AFDC payments from consideration in assessing financial ability to pay restitution.
M.P., a seventeen-year-old female, was adjudged in contempt of court for failing to pay restitution ordered as part of her delinquency disposition. M.…
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 Financial Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
We reverse the circuit court’s order adjudging M.P., a seventeen-year-old female, in contempt of court for failing to pay restitution to the victim of her delinquent act. Our decision is based upon the trial court’s failure to include in its order of contempt either of the affirmative findings mandated under the supreme court’s holding in Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976).
We remand this cause to the circuit court for entry of an appropriate finding consistent with the holding of Faircloth. If, however, the trial court is unable under the facts presented in the record to make a finding as set forth in Faircloth, then appellant cannot be held in contempt for noncompliance with the court’s previous restitution order. Payments received by appellant under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program for the care of her infant should not be considered by the court in assessing M.P.’s present financial ability to comply with the court’s restitution order. Diversion of such public-assistance payments to satisfy appellant’s pre-ex-isting restitution obligation would, of course, frustrate the legislative intent and purpose underlying the need for such financial assistance. See §§ 409.235, .185, Florida Statutes (1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
OTT, C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Quintana v. State, 452 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…st that. In reversing the conviction, the Fourth District found the predicate to have been sufficient to allow introduction of evidence of the victim’s reputation for vio [*101] lence and of specific acts of such violence. Next, in Reddick v. State, 443 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the same result was reached on evidence disclosing the victim had broken into the defendant’s home, threatening to kill the defendant. The next morning, armed with a stick and evidently expecting another confrontation with the vi…
-
E.B. v. State, 531 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ness of defendant’s belief concerning imminent danger); Sanchez v. State, 445 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim and character admissible to show reasonableness of defendant’s fear); Reddick, v. State, 443 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (evidence of specific acts of violence by victim admissible to show defendant’s concern for his own safety); Hager v. State, 439 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (sufficient predicate rendered admissible victim’s violent reputation…
-
Thomas v. State, 453 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…estitution payments as was contemplated by this Court in Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), it can only be concluded that the court did so by considering appellant’s receipt of the AFDC monies and the food stamps. In M.P. v. State, 443 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), the second district unequivocally held that payments received under the AFDC program should not be considered by the trial court in its assessment of present ability to comply with a court’s restitution order. The second district…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)