T.A.W., 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.
T.A.W., a juvenile, appealed a disposition order in a delinquency case where the trial court ranked sending him to a state school as the first priority option, even though the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services had not suggested this option. The court held that the trial court violated the mandatory statutory requirement to rank only from among the options presented by the Department.
A trial court may not rank as a priority option an alternative not presented by the Department. Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes, mandatorily requires the court to rank only the options presented by the Department in order of the court's preference. The lower court lacked jurisdiction to modify the order on appeal.
[1] A court must rank the placement options for a delinquent child as presented by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
[2] Statutory provisions governing the disposition of juvenile delinquency cases are mandatory.
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 court selected as the number one placement priority an alternative that was not suggested by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services”
Describes the specific statutory violation committed by the trial court in ranking an option not presented by 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 intelligenceT.A.W. was found to have committed a delinquent act. The trial court issued a disposition order ranking the placement of the child in a state school a…
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 Mandatory Statutory Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
T.A.W. appeals from an order of disposition in a delinquency case which ranked as first priority the option of sending him to a state school. Section 39.-09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1983), requires the court to rank the options presented to it by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.1 As in L.J.N. v. State, 411
(3) DISPOSITION HEARING FOR DELINQUENCY CASES. — When a child has been found to have committed a delinquent act, the So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the court selected as the number one placement priority an alternative that was not suggested by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The provisions of this statute regarding disposition of juvenile cases are mandatory.2
While this case was on appeal, the lower court attempted to modify its order to comply with section 39.09(3)(e), but it lacked jurisdiction to do so.3 Accordingly, we vacate the disposition order and remand for entry of an order in compliance with the controlling statute.
ORDER VACATED; REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. . Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1983), provides: following procedures shall be applicable to the disposition of the case:
(e) If the court determines that the child should be adjudicated as having committed a delinquent act and that he should be committed to the department, such determination shall be in writing or on the record of the hearing. The determination shall include a specific finding on reasons for the decision to adjudicate and commit the child to the department. If the court decides to commit a child to the department, the department shall furnish the court, in order of the preference of the department, a list of not less than three options for programs in which the child may be placed. The court shall rank the options presented by the department in order of the preference of the court. The recommendation of the court shall be reviewed by the department and shall be given primary consideration. The recommendation of the court shall be followed if the commitment resource is available. The court may also require that the child be placed in a community control program following the child’s discharge from commitment. Community-based sanctions may be imposed by the court at the disposition hearing or at any time prior to the child’s discharge from commitment.
. W.Y. v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
. Ward v. State, 405 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…Florida Statutes (1985), provides, “The court shall rank the options presented by [HRS] in order of the preference of the court.” This statute is mandatory and does not permit the trial court to insert its own placement option. See T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). On remand, the trial court should rank the options presented by HRS. As another point on appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to follow certain require…
-
In re the Interest of L.B. v. Alberta McHELLEN, 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…he lower court’s actions in recommending placement options for the minors in this case were in violation of the mandatory dictates of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). See T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); W.Y. v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This case is reversed and remanded for entry of an order in compliance with the statute. REVERSED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH…
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…o. 2d 27 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Margain, 495 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In re Interest of L.B., 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); R.S. v. State, 414 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); W.Y v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); L.J.N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also In re Interest of K.A.B., 483 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fuse v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- L. J. N. v. State, 411 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- W. Y. v. State, 414 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Ward v. State, 405 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)