IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.R., 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 committed to HRS petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel HRS to comply with Florida law requiring placement in a commitment program within five days of commitment, rather than remaining in detention indefinitely. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that HRS must comply with the statutory requirement regardless of resource constraints.
HRS must comply with section 959.12 and place committed juveniles in a commitment program within five days, with no exception for resource constraints. The statute's requirement is mandatory, and juveniles cannot remain in detention beyond this statutory limit after commitment to HRS.
[1] A juvenile committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services must be removed from detention and placed in a commitment program within five days of commitm…
[2] A state agency's inability to comply with a statutory mandate due to a lack of resources does not excuse compliance.
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
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner A.M.R. is a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the authority of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Serv…
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’c 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
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Soliman, 947 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…is case. As noted before, the specific requirements laid out by the trial court in this case are not supported by the law or the evidence. ERVIN, J., concurs; ALLEN, J., concurs in the judgment. . Respondent relies on the cases of A.M.R. v. Coler, 555 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and D.W. v. Coler, 555 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We find that those cases are inapplicable. The only relief granted in those cases was requiring the Department to comply with the statute. It appears several options were ava…
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)