STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD SIMON, NANCY REID, AND ANGEL NAVARRO, APPELLEES
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 Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) appealed three trial court orders adopting masters' reports recommending involuntary admission of three individuals to residential services. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that HRS lacked standing because it was not a party to the proceedings below, having neither filed the involuntary admission petition nor been made a formal party.
HRS lacks standing to appeal because it was not a party to the proceedings below. Party status cannot be conferred merely because HRS is affected by the orders or lacks resources to comply with them. HRS' statutory obligation to inform the court of available services does not confer party status, and there is no evidence that the respondents consented to HRS becoming a party.
[1] A state agency that does not initiate involuntary commitment proceedings and is not made a party to the proceedings lacks standing to appeal orders adopting master's repo…
[2] A state agency's alleged lack of resources to comply with court orders does not confer party status or standing to appeal.
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“HRS is not a party to this proceeding and has no standing to perfect an appeal from these orders.”
Core holding establishing lack of standing for the appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree individuals (Ronald Simon, Nancy Reid, and Angel Navarro) were subjects of involuntary admission proceedings for developmental disability/mental…
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 Party Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services [HRS] from three trial court orders adopting, respectively, three master’s reports, filed after evidentiary hearings. These reports, which the trial court orders adopt, recommend that the respondents Ronald Simon, Nancy Reid and Angel Navarro be involuntarily admitted, as being developmentally disabled by virtue of being mentally retarded, to residential services provided by HRS pursuant to Section 393.11, Florida Statutes (1985). Without dispute, HRS did not, through any of its employees, file the involuntary admission petition below as the statutory peti tioning committee. This being so, we conclude that HRS is not a party to this proceeding and has no standing to perfect an appeal from these orders. See, e.g., Jaffer v. Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency, 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla.1980); Salomon v. Taylor, 50 Fla. 608, 39 So. 48 (1905); Transportation Management Co. v. Druck, 279 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), aff'd. in part and rev’d. in part on other grounds sub nom. Goodfriend v. Druck, 289 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1974); Buchanan v. Jimenez, 155 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
We reject HRS’ contrary contentions that it has standing to contest these orders, although not a technical party below, because they are “affected” by the said orders and allegedly have no resources to comply with same because HRS has a bureaucratically determined waiting list of “more worthy” voluntary patients “ahead” of these involuntary commitments and therefore cannot house the subject involuntary commitments. Even if true, these considerations cannot confer party status on HRS, as plainly HRS’ remedy, if any, in this situation is to seek adequate funding from the legislature for the services it is legislatively mandated to provide. This issue, we think, is a question for the legislature, not the courts, to resolve.
We are equally unpersuaded by the remaining contentions of HRS. In particular, we reject the argument that HRS’ statutory obligation to “inform the court of all available services for the person” under Section 393.11(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), in any way confers party status on HRS in proceedings of this nature. We also reject HRS’ contention that the respondents “consented” to HRS becoming a party below as the record is utterly devoid of any such showing; indeed, HRS was never made a party in the trial court at all, but was only allowed to make a proffer for appellate purposes.
Inasmuch as HRS is not a party to the proceedings herein, we dismiss its appeal from the three orders under review.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. J.W. & State of Fla., 884 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…by reason of insanity and committing J.W. to DCF to be placed in a mental health treatment facility. Because DCF was not a party to the case below, it lacks standing to challenge the trial court’s order. See Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Simon, 492 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The petition is therefore denied. Petition denied. CASANUEVA, DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.…
-
Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. J.T. & State of Fla., 884 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…edure 8.095, challenging aspects of the trial court’s order finding J.T. incompetent to stand trial. Because DCF was not a party to the case below, it lacks standing to challenge the trial court’s order. See Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Simon, 492 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The petition is therefore denied. Petition denied. CASANUEVA, DAVIS, and CANADY, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jaffer v. Miami Beach Redev. Agency, 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1980)
- Goodfriend v. Elbert J. Druck, 289 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1974)
- Salomon v. Taylor, 50 Fla. 608 (Fla. 1905)
- Buchanan v. Jimenez, 155 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Transp. Mgmt. Co. v. Elbert J. Druck, 279 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)