IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.T., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
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 juvenile petitioned for writ of mandamus challenging the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' failure to place him in a commitment program within five days of commitment, as required by Florida Statute § 959.12. The court held that the statute mandates placement within five days with no discretionary exceptions, and granted the relief sought despite the petition becoming moot.
Section 959.12 does not permit discretion and mandates that a child committed to H.R.S. must be removed from detention and placed into a commitment program within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The word 'shall' in the statute is mandatory, not permissive, and the statute must be complied with by juvenile authorities and trial courts.
[1] A statute requiring a child committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to be removed from detention and placed into a commitment program within fiv…
[2] A petition for writ of mandamus alleging failure of public officials to comply with statutory duties regarding the placement of a juvenile in a commitment program is not…
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“the removal of the child from detention and placement of the child into a commitment program shall occur within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays”
Statement of the mandatory statutory requirement under section 959.12, establishing the operative legal standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.M.T., a juvenile, pled guilty to violation of community control and was committed to the custody of H.R.S., initially placed in secure detention. H.…
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 Statutory Interpretation Of 'Shall' cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a juvenile, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court alleging that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) had failed to comply with the requirements of section 959.12, Florida Statutes, when it did not place him in a commitment program within five days after he was committed to the custody of H.R.S.
Petitioner pled guilty to violation of community control, was committed to the custody of H.R.S. and placed in secure detention. H.R.S. furnished the trial court with three commitment options as required by section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The trial court then ranked the. three options according to its preference. Rather than place petitioner in a commitment program within five days as required by the statute, the trial court extended the detention three times over the objection of the petitioner. Evidently, this was done so petitioner could be placed in the first choice option program.
Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandamus against H.R.S. arguing that he should have been placed in a commitment program within five days. Section 959.12, Florida Statutes, states that when “a child is committed to [H.R.S.], the removal of the child from detention and placement of the child into a commitment program shall occur within five days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.” Ultimately petitioner was placed into the first choice commitment program and H.R.S. moved to dismiss the petition as moot. We denied that motion finding that the issue present ed involved the duties and authority of public officials in the administration of the law, and was likely to recur, yet would consistently evade review because of the relatively short period of detention. C.L.B. v. Jones, 381 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
We have reviewed section 959.12 and determine that the statute does not permit discretion on the part of H.R.S. Although section 39.032(6)(c), Florida Statutes, does allow for a 15 day continuance after a juvenile has been adjudicated, in the case at bar a disposition hearing had already been held. Unlike section 39.032(6)(c), there is no provision for a continuance contained in section 959.12.
We are not persuaded by H.R.S.’s arguments that the use of word “shall” in the statute is permissive. The placement of the juvenile in a commitment program is not within the discretion of H.R.S. The child must be removed from detention and placed into a commitment program within the five days as required by section 959.12. B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The statute must be complied with by the juvenile authorities and the trial courts.
The petition for writ of mandamus shall be construed as a petition for writ of habe-as corpus. Because petitioner has now been placed into a commitment program, we withhold issuance of the writ (no issue being raised as to the legality of his present commitment). The relief sought by petitioner, however, is granted.
WIGGINTON, NIMMONS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.C., 567 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…like this one are so common that the public defender’s office uses a form petition and argument to present to this court. And our district is not the only one experiencing this problem. See C.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 550 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Like the above referenced, this case has become factually moot because of placement of the child, but clearly it is a controversy capable of repetition yet evading review, su…
-
In the Interest of A.B., 553 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ne of the designated placement facilities is immediately available. In similar cases, two other district courts of appeal have granted extraordinary relief. For example, In the Interest of C.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 550 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), arose from a petition for writ of mandamus filed by a juvenile held in detention longer than five days. The juvenile was subsequently placed into a commitment program prior to issuance of the court’s opinion. Accordingly, the co…
-
In the Interest of D.W. v. Coler, 555 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…comply with section 959.12, Florida Statutes (1987), by placing him in a commitment program. We grant the petition, which we treat as one for a writ of habeas corpus. See In the interest of C.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 550 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). We agree with petitioner’s argument and the decisions in C.M.T. and B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), that section 959.12 requires HRS to remove a juvenile from detention and place him or her in a commitmen…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- C. L. B. v. Carlton L. Jones, 381 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)