D.L.T., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES H. HEISNER, DIRECTOR, BAY COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER, HONORABLE THOMAS R. ELLINOR, ACTING CIRCUIT JUDGE, FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, AND DAVID PINGREE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
A Florida appellate court clarified its prior habeas corpus order directing that a juvenile be detained in the statutorily designated catchment area rather than in a different facility. The court held that while the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has authority to formally alter catchment area boundaries, it cannot selectively move juveniles between areas on an ad hoc basis for administrative convenience.
The court held that while section 959.022 permits the department to formally alter or modify catchment area boundaries, it does not authorize selective, ad hoc movement of juveniles between catchment areas based on administrative convenience. The practice of moving children from one catchment area to another without formal modification of the statutory boundaries is unauthorized.
[1] A state department's authority to alter or modify statutory catchment areas does not permit it to selectively ignore those boundaries for convenience.
[2] The need to protect juveniles' rights outweighs any advantage in detaining a juvenile in a facility geographically closest to their home county.
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“While section 959.022 does permit the department to alter or modify the statutory catchment areas, it does not authorize the department to selectively ignore the catchment boundaries on the basis of convenience to it.”
States the core holding regarding the department's limited authority under section 959.022
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child (D.L.T.) was taken into custody in Franklin County, which is part of catchment area 3 under Florida's regional detention system. The Departmen…
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 Juvenile Detention Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ERVIN, Chief Judge.
On March 15, 1985, the following order was entered on the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed herein:
Respondent shall forthwith remove petitioner to catchment area 3. A detention hearing in compliance with the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure shall be conducted within 24 hours of the issuance of this order before an appropriate Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit.
Though the order was complied with, respondent has filed a motion for rehearing and both parties have requested clarification because, according to HRS, the current practice is to remove Franklin County juveniles requiring detention to Bay County for detention proceedings. Respondent insists that section 959.022, Fla.Stat., grants it the authority to redefine catchment areas and therefore HRS may move juveniles from one statutorily defined catchment area to another.1 Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that under section 39.02(3)(b), Fla. Stat., only the circuit court for the county in which a juvenile is taken into custody has jurisdiction over the juvenile. In entering the order herein, we did not reach the jurisdictional issue because we do not read section 959.022 as bestowing the broad power of authority espoused by the department. While section 959.022 does permit the department to alter or modify the statutory catchment areas, it does not authorize the department to selectively ignore the catchment boundaries on the basis of convenience to it. As the facts of this case demonstrate, the need to protect juveniles’ rights by compliance with both chapters 959 and 39 outweighs any advantage inherent in detaining a juvenile in the facility that is geographically closest to his home county. Since the department has not in fact altered or modified the definitions of the catchment areas, we find that the practice of moving children from one area to another on an ad hoc basis is unauthorized.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for rehearing is denied.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur. .Section 959.022, Fla.Stat., provides in pertinent part:
959.022 State-operated detention.—
(1) The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is authorized to develop and implement a state-operated, regionally administered system of detention services for children.
(2)(a) The department shall develop a comprehensive plan for the implementation of the regional administration of all detention services in the state. The plan shall provide for the availability of detention services for all counties, and shall be fully implemented by December 31, 1973.
(b) The initial implementation plan shall be comprised of 18 catchment areas, with each area having a secure facility, attention homes, and a home detention program. The department shall have the authority to alter or modify the initial implementation plan.
(c) The department shall establish the catchment areas under the initial implementation plan as follows:
1. Area 1. — Escambia, Santa Rosa, and Oka-loosa Counties;
2. Area 2. — Walton, Holmes, Jackson, Calhoun, Gulf, Bay and Washington Counties;
3. Area 3. — Gadsden, Leon, Jefferson, Madison, Liberty, Franklin, Wakulla and Taylor Counties;
4. Area 4. — Hamilton, Lafayette, Dixie, Columbia, Suwannee, Union, Gilchrist, Levy, Ala-chua, Bradford, and Putnam Counties;