DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
R.W.K., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile court imposed a condition of community control requiring the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to place a child in a specific residential facility and fully fund the placement. The Florida appellate court struck down this condition, holding that courts cannot use conditions of community control to direct state agencies' actions and lack statutory authority to mandate placement in specific facilities.
The condition is invalid and must be stricken. Courts cannot use conditions of community control to direct or limit the actions of state supervising agencies or third parties. Additionally, even if the child had been committed to HRS under the applicable statute, the court lacks statutory authority to place the child in a specific facility; it may only rank three or more options presented by HRS in order of preference.
[1] Conditions of community control are intended to restrict the individual, not to direct or limit the actions of a supervising state agency or other third parties.
[2] A court's authority to place a child in a residential facility is limited to ranking options presented by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in or…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a condition of probation or community control is for the purpose of restricting the person, on probation or community control or conditioning the continuation of that status; it is not properly used to direct or limit the action of the state supervising agency or other third parties.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that conditions of community control cannot be used to direct state agency actions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was placed under community control supervised by HRS. Upon a second violation of community control, the juvenile judge amended the prior or…
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 Community Control Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Upon a second violation of community control by a juvenile, the juvenile judge amended a prior order extending community control by adding a condition that HRS place the juvenile at a specific residential facility and fully fund the placement. HRS appeals. The condition of community control requiring HRS to place the juvenile in a specific facility and fully fund the placement is invalid and is hereby stricken.
First, a condition of probation or community control is for the purpose of restricting the person, on probation or community control or conditioning the continuation of that status; it is not properly used to direct or limit the action of the state supervising agency or other third parties.
Second, the child has only been placed in a community control program under the supervision of HRS pursuant to section 39.-ll(l)(a), Florida Statutes.1 The court has not committed the child to HRS under section 39.11(l)(c), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, the question of HRS placing the child in a residential facility was not properly before the court.
Third, even had the court committed the child to HRS under section 39.11(l)(c), Florida Statutes, the court does not have the statutory authority to place the child in a specific facility or program. The court has only the authority to rank three or more options presented by HRS in order of preference by the court pursuant to section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes. See B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); D.M., Jr. v. State, 539 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); N.L.J. v. Komanski, 527 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); H.R.S. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); H.R.S. v. McGregor, 511 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); H.R.S. v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); In re K.J.M., 495 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In re L.B., 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
CONDITION STRICKEN and CAUSE REMANDED.
DANIEL, C.J., and SHARP, W„ J„ concur. . Section 39.01(12), Florida Statutes, defines community control as:
"Community control" means the legal status of probation created by law and court order in cases involving a child who has been found to have committed a delinquent act. Community control is an individualized program in which the freedom of the child is limited and the child is restricted to noninstitutional quarters or restricted to a child’s home in lieu of commitment to the custody of the department in a training school, halfway house, or other residential program of the department.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 616 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…apter 39, this court has ruled with HRS on these points. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1991); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. R.W.K., 556 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); In Interest of K.A.B., 483 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In K.A.B., the juvenile judge directed HRS to keep the dependent child at “Country Acres,” a county operated juven…
-
Dep't OF Juv. Just. v. J.R., 710 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…See e.g., State, Department of Juvenile Justice v. E.W., 704 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. J.T.H., 595 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. R.W.K., 556 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); In re the Interest of L.B., 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Section 985.23(1)(d) provides that parties to the case shall include representatives of DJJ. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. R.S., 567 So. 2…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. R.S., 567 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…valid because: (1) Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1987), does not give the court statutory authority to place the child in a specific facility or program as this court has ruled in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. R.W.K., 556 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). (2) Dozier is a training school, and, in order to gain admission, the child must meet the requirements of section 39.113, Florida Statutes (1987), entitled “Juvenile [*533] Boot Camp”; this child does not meet those requirement…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- In re the Interest of L.B. v. Alberta McHELLEN, 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Lovette v. State, 495 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- T.A.W. v. State, 455 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Carvel Holloman v. State, 511 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- State v. Hon. Robert B. McGREGOR, 511 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- N.L.J. v. Hon. Walter Komanski, 527 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- D.M., JR. v. State, 539 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)