IN THE INTEREST OF W.R., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; IN THE INTEREST OF D.H., 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.
Two juvenile delinquents appealed restitution orders following adjudication for criminal mischief. The court reversed because the trial court erred in finding that the appellants' mothers had the financial ability to pay the ordered restitution of $52 per month, despite finding both mothers indigent.
The court reversed and held that under the circumstances presented, the evidence did not support a finding that the appellants and their mothers could reasonably be expected to pay $52 per month in restitution.
[1] A court may not order restitution payments from parents that exceed an amount the child and parents can reasonably be expected to pay.
[2] A parent's receipt of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments should not be considered when assessing their present financial ability to pay restitution.
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 amount of restitution shall not be greater than an amount the child and his parents could reasonably be expected to pay or make”
Establishes the statutory standard under Section 39.11(1)(a)1 that restitution must be reasonable in light of parents' financial ability
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 3, 1983, W.R. and D.H., along with another individual, climbed into a farm combine belonging to Melvin Barber, drove it around cornfields …
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
ERVIN, Chief Judge.
W.R. and D.H. appeal individual orders of restitution following an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief. These cases are consolidated for purposes of the appeal since they arose out of the same incident and involve similar factual and legal issues. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in concluding that the appellants’ mothers possess the financial ability to pay the restitution ordered. We agree and reverse.
On December 22, 1983, a petition was filed charging W.R. and D.H. with burglary of a conveyance, grand theft and criminal mischief. Appellants admitted the criminal mischief charge and the state nolle prossed the other two counts. Appellants admitted in a predisposition report that on December 3, 1983, they and one other individual climbed into a farm combine belonging to Melvin Barber and drove the combine around the cornfields and ultimately into a tree, causing extensive damage to the combine. On February 24, 1984, at a restitution hearing, the trial judge, although finding both mothers indigent, ordered appellants and their mothers to pay $50 per month, plus a $2.00 clerk’s fee ($52.00 per month), until the court no, longer had jurisdiction, or until the insured value of the combine was paid.
Appellants argue that the court erred in concluding that appellants’ mothers possessed the financial ability to make restitution. When restitution is ordered, Section 39.11(l)(a)l, Florida Statutes, mandates that “the amount of restitution shall not be greater than an amount the child and his parents could reasonably be expected to pay or make.” (e.s.) D.H.’s mother is unemployed, supports herself and three children, and receives $231 per month in AFDC1 and $40 per month from an undisclosed source for support of one of her children. W.R.’s mother is supporting W.R., two younger daughters and an aunt on a monthly salary of $250. She pays $200 per month for rent, $80 for electricity, $15 for telephone service and $50 for furniture rental. W.R.’s natural father was in prison at the time of the hearing. Both W.R. and D.H. are unemployed and are attending school full-time in the Gadsden Vocational Technical School Plumbing Program.
Under these circumstances, the evidence does not support a finding that appellants and their mothers can reasonably be expected to pay $52 per month in restitution.
REVERSED.
MILLS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . Payments received by appellant under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) should not be considered by the court in assessing the present financial ability to pay restitution. See M.P. v. State, 443 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.L. v. State, 497 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…mis-sibly delegated to the parties the authority to determine the manner of payment, and considering that the amount that O.L. will be required to pay per period has a bearing on the reasonableness of the total restitution scheme, cf. W.R. v. State, 462 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (restitution order which required juvenile delinquents, with parents who earned meager incomes and had numerous dependents and substantial monthly expenses, to each pay $52 per month held unreasonable), we reverse the order insof…
-
S.B.L. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court to conduct further proceedings that comport with fundamental due process. BARFIELD, C.J., and BOOTH, J., concur. . We caution the trial court that under the authority of W.R. v. State, 462 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the financial resources of a parent must be evaluated in determining the reasonableness of restitution in a juvenile proceeding.…
-
In the Interest of J.W. v. State, 559 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…make restitution, and because the trial court left the amount of restitution and the manner of payment up to the parties and counselors. See § 39.11(l)(a)l., Fla.Stat. (1989); see also O.L. v. State, 497 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); W.R. v. State, 462 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); T.W. v. State, 395 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- M.P. v. State, 443 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)