KATHRYN WILLIAMS, 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.
The court held that the evidentiary record did not support involuntary placement under the Baker Act because there was no clear and convincing evidence of present danger or inability to survive.
Appellant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and lived in unkempt conditions. After initially being placed with her daughter and ordered to att…
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 Involuntary Placement cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order of involuntary placement under the Baker Act, section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Finding the evidentiary record does not support placement, we reverse and order appellant be released.
At the initial hearing, it was shown that appellant lived in somewhat unkept conditions in a home she shared with family members. She had wandered away from her home on several occasions to loiter at a nearby convenience store. She was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for which she took medication. As an alternative to ruling on placement, the trial court directed that appellant reside with her daughter Patricia and Patricia’s husband, who testified to their willingness to supervise Mrs. Williams, and directed that appellant attend a mental health day care program in Live Oak. Two weeks later, the trial court ordered appellant committed when she failed to attend the day treatment program.
Having reviewed the record, we can find no clear and convincing evidence that appellant was a present danger to herself or to others or that she was unable to survive in the conditions she was residing in at the time she was ordered committed. Schexnayder v. State, 495 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); § 394.467(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1987). Even though the other criteria set out in section 394.467(1) might be met, a non-dangerous individual, capable of surviving safely in freedom by herself or with the help of others, should never be involuntarily committed. In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1977). The mere need for treatment alone is insufficient to commit an individual. Neff v. State, 356 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The trial court, however, retains continuing jurisdiction to order placement upon a sufficient showing by the state that the statutory criteria are met. Therefore, the order of involuntary placement is REVERSED.
MILLS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyon v. State, 724 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…e clear and convincing proof. See In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481, 488 (Fla.1977). A “non-dangerous individual, capable of surviving safely in freedom by herself or with the help of others, should never be involuntarily committed.” Williams v. State, 522 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). “[A]need for treatment and medication does not in itself justify a Baker Act commitment.” Adams v. State, 713 So. 2d 1063, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). See also In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d at 481; Archer v. State, 681 So. 2d 296…
-
Welk v. State, 542 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…e television as starting when she changed the channel and another person objected, and the side of her face was scraped. We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the decisions in In re Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1977); Williams v. State, 522 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Smith v. State, 508 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); and Schexnayder v. State, 495 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). On the authority of those cases, we are compelled to hold the evidence legally insufficient to support [*1345] th…
-
Adams v. State, 713 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…quoting from the petition for involuntary placement. Furthermore, while the court also made oral findings at the conclusion of the hearing, a need for treatment and medication does not in itself justify a Baker Act commitment. See Williams v. State, 522 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Rather, there must be clear and convincing evidence that without treatment the appellant would pose a real and present threat of substantial harm to his own well-being, or a substantial likelihood that in the near future he woul…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Preer Beverly, 342 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Vasquez, 495 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Schexnayder v. State, 495 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- State v. Wardlow, 356 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Neff v. State, 356 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)