IN THE INTEREST OF T.J.D., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
GREGORY L. COLER, AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, JAY KASSACK, AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DELORES G. DRY, AS DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, WILLIAM FINE, AS SUPERINTENDENT SOUTHWEST FLORIDA JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, RESPONDENTS
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 adjudicated delinquent and committed to HRS seeks mandamus relief to compel HRS to place him in a commitment program rather than continuing detention. The court holds that section 959.12, Florida Statutes requires HRS to remove juveniles from detention and place them in a commitment program within five days of commitment, and grants the petition despite HRS's resource constraints.
HRS must comply with section 959.12 by removing juveniles from detention and placing them in a commitment program within five days after commitment. Resource constraints do not excuse HRS from complying with this statutory mandate; such arguments are properly directed to the legislature.
[1] A writ of mandamus may be treated as a writ of habeas corpus when appropriate.
[2] Section 959.12, Florida Statutes (1987), requires the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to remove a juvenile from detention and place them in a commitment…
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“section 959.12 requires HRS to remove a juvenile from detention and place him or her in a commitment program within five days after the juvenile has been committed to HRS”
Establishes the core statutory requirement at issue and the court's interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner is a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the authority of HRS. HRS was not complying with statutory requirements …
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 Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the authority of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), seeks a writ of mandamus to compel HRS to 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 commitment program within five days after the juvenile has been committed to HRS. Although we are not unsympathetic with HRS’s contention that it is unable to comply with the statute because it lacks the resources, that argument is more appropriately addressed to the legislature. We note that section 39.09(3)(e), which provides that HRS submit a list of three commitment placement options, of which options the trial court ranks in order of preference, also states: “The recommendation of the court shall be followed if the commitment resource is available.” Further, section 959.011(3) authorizes HRS to transfer persons from one facility or program to another, including furlough in the community. In no event is the juvenile to remain in detention more than the statutory limit after he or she has been committed to HRS.
Accordingly, the petition is granted, and the case is remanded with directions to HRS to comply with section 959.12.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of C.M.T. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 550 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)