DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
V.L., A CHILD, AND JAMES M. RUSS, ETC., APPELLEES
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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed the trial court's denial of a stay pending review of an order requiring HRS to place a dependent child in a secured psychiatric facility costing approximately $47,000 annually. The appellate court reversed, vacating the trial court's orders and staying the placement order pending review, finding that HRS has discretionary authority over child placement decisions under Florida law.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of stay and vacated the December 14, 1990 placement order pending review, finding that HRS possesses discretionary authority to decide where to keep a child in its custody, and that courts do not have general supervisory power over HRS placement decisions.
[1] A state agency vested with legal custody of a child possesses the discretion to determine the child's placement.
[2] An appellate court may intervene to stay a trial court's order when the order imposes a substantial and disproportionate financial burden on public funds.
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“[I]t is crystal clear that it is within the discretion of the agency [HRS] to decide where to keep a child who is in its custody.... The courts are not given general supervisory power over the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under the statutes.”
Establishes that HRS has discretionary authority over child placement decisions and courts lack general supervisory power over such decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceV.L. is a 15-year-old dependent child who has been in the court's custody since infancy. The trial court ordered HRS to place V.L. into an appropriate…
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.
PETERSON, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services requests review, pursuant to Rule 9.310(f), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, of the trial court’s order denying stay of its order of December 14, 1990. The latter order required H.R.S. to place V.L., the dependent child, into “an appropriate secured, long-range, psychiatric facility ... within 10 calendar days” and to pay all fees, costs, and expenses associated with the hospitalization and medical treatment of V.L. We reverse.
Section 39.41(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1989), vests H.R.S. with all rights and responsibilities of a legal custodian when a child is committed to its temporary legal custody.1 Section 39.413(1), Florida Statutes (1989), allows a legal custodian to appeal an order of the trial court that affects the child, and subsection (3) provides that an appeal shall not operate as a supersede-as unless ordered by the trial court. See also rule 8.840, Fla.R.Juv.P. While we normally would not interfere with the trial court’s denial of an application for a stay pending review, we believe this case re quires it. It appears from the appendices attached to the parties’ request and response that placement of this long-term charge of the state into the type of facility required by the order would cost approximately $47,000 per year. This amount is in excess of three times the current cost of psychiatric hospitalization for each of ninety-three other children within the district in which the child is located. This substantial difference in cost to public funds, together with what initially appears to be the failure to recognize In Interest of K.A.B., 483 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), requires us to vacate the order. In In Interest of K.A.B., this court stated:
[I]t is crystal clear that it is within the discretion of the agency [HRS] to decide where to keep a child who is in its custody.... The courts are not given general supervisory power over the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under the statutes.
Id. at 899 (citations omitted).
The trial court’s order of December 20, 1990, denying the stay and its order of December 21, 1990, vacating automatic stay pursuant to Rule 9.310(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, are vacated. The trial court’s order of December 14, 1990, is stayed pending review. The review of that order may be expedited upon motion by a party.
ORDERS VACATED.
COWART and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . The word "temporary” in the statute is somewhat of a misnomer since the term of custody continues until the child reaches eighteen years of age unless terminated by the court. This child is fifteen years old and has been in the custody of the court since she was nine months old.