J.N., A CHILD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA AND ADRIAN MATHENA, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ORANGE REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
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 child detained in secure detention at a juvenile detention center petitioned for habeas corpus relief, claiming her detention violated Florida law. The appellate court granted the petition, finding that the trial court failed to make sufficient written findings required by statute to justify secure detention based on the child's low risk assessment score.
The court granted the habeas corpus petition, holding that the trial court's findings were insufficient to justify J.N.'s confinement in secure detention under Florida Statute section 985.255(2), and directed the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of J.N.'s detention and either enter a written order complying with the statute or release her from secure detention.
[1] A juvenile's detention in secure detention requires a written statement of clear and convincing reasons when the juvenile scores below a certain threshold on a risk asses…
[2] A trial court's order for release to respite care is insufficient to justify continued secure detention if no beds are available at a youth shelter.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“J.N. scored three points on the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI), which is not enough to justify secure detention without a written statement of clear and convincing reasons.”
Establishes that J.N.'s low risk assessment score did not support secure detention without proper written findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.N., a child, was arrested on December 2, 2019, for battery with domestic violence. She scored three points on the Detention Risk Assessment Instrume…
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 Secure Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
J.N., a child, petitions this Court for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that she is being unlawfully detained in secure detention. We grant the petition.
J.N. was arrested on December 2, 2019, on charges of battery with domestic violence. J.N. scored three points on the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument (DRAI), which is not enough to justify secure detention without a written statement of clear and convincing reasons. At J.N.'s arraignment on December 3, 2019, even after being informed by the court that the only placement available for J.N. would likely be the detention center, J.N.'s mother, the victim of the domestic violence, stated that she did not want J.N. to be released into her care. Consequently, the trial court ordered J.N.'s release to Youth Shelter based on domestic violence in the home and stated that if there are no beds available at the Youth Shelter, J.N. is to remain detained at the detention center in respite care.
However, J.N.'s counsel indicates that although J.N. is categorized as being held in respite care at the detention center, she is currently being held under the same conditions as "secure detention." Based on counsel's representations to this Court, this placement is likely more restrictive than what is legally permissible according to the DRAI results. Moreover, while section 985.255(2), Florida Statutes (2019), provides for the detention of a child charged with domestic violence, the trial court must make specific written findings that respite care is not available and that secure detention is necessary to protect the victim from injury. The trial court's findings in the release order are insufficient for J.N.'s confinement in secured detention pursuant to section 985.255(2).
Therefore, we grant the petition and direct the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the nature of J.N.'s detention. If counsel's representations are accurate, then the trial court is directed to either enter a written order in accordance with section 985.255(2) or order J.N.'s release from secure detention by 5:00 p.m. on the 2 second business day following the date of issuance of this opinion. See D.F. v. Housel, 10 So. 3d 694, 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
PETITION GRANTED.
EISNAUGLE and SASSO, JJ., concur. 3