A.O., A CHILD, D.B., A CHILD, T.E.H., A CHILD, D.D., A CHILD, A.J., A CHILD, C.M., A CHILD, S.M., A CHILD, T.E., A CHILD, M.B., A CHILD, N.D., A CHILD, C.K., A CHILD, F.A., A CHILD, PETITIONERS,
v.
GREG CHINAULT, DIRECTOR, POLK REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER, 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.
The court held that the Department's vague responses to habeas corpus petitions are inadequate and ordered discharge from detention if still confined.
Juvenile petitioners filed habeas corpus petitions alleging unlawful detention in violation of a statute requiring removal from detention within five …
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 Mootness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court has received a number of ha-beas corpus petitions, each originating in the juvenile division of the circuit court in Polk County, wherein it is contended that the petitioners are being held in detention in violation of section 39.044(11), Florida Statutes (1990). That statute mandates the removal of a child from detention, and his placement into a commitment program, within five days of the date the child has been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. See B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Upon the receipt of these petitions this court has ordered a response, generally within a period of only a few days. In many instances that response indicates only that the Department “intends to have the petitioner placed and out of the respondent’s custody prior to the date this response is due.” Such a response is inadequate for at least two reasons. First, it fails to address the merits of the petition, ie., whether the child is, in fact, being detained in violation of the statute. Second, it implies that the Department considers our response orders a de facto extension of time for placing the child in a commitment program. Accordingly, all such responses in these cases have been, or are hereby, stricken.
In each of the above-styled cases the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted to the extent the petitioner is hereby ordered discharged from the respondent’s custody in the event he or she is still confined in the Polk Regional Juvenile Detention Center. If any of the petitioners have been transferred from detention into a commitment program, their petitions are denied as moot.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.L.W. v. The Honorable A.C. Soud, Jr., 645 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…e record. III. It appears well-settled that habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a minor held in secure detention contrary to statute. A.A. v. Rolle, 604 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1992); Z.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); A.O. v. Chinault, 571 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Section 39.044(5)(a) purports to characterize an order of this nature as a final order reviewable by appeal. However, such an order is clearly not final as it does not signal an end of the judicial labor in the cause. Rather, an…
-
R.L. v. State, 578 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ting R.L.’s petition should be denied because, on March 29, 1991, R.L. had been transferred from secure detention to home detention pending placement in an appropriate commitment program. This response was legally insufficient. See A.O. v. Chinault, 571 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We ordered a further response which has yielded the argument that section 39.044(11), Florida Statutes, allows unlimited home detention and that the fifteen day limitation contained in the statute merely refers to the amount of t…
-
A.W. v. State, 704 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See A.O. v. Chinault, 571 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). PETERSON, THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)