DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
J.T.H., A CHILD, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1991-10-10
No. 90-1749
GOSHORN, C.J., concurs., DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only without opinion.
586 So. 2d 516 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court must clarify whether the child has been adjudicated delinquent before committing the child to HRS.


Facts & Procedural History

The trial court ordered HRS to place a child in a residential treatment facility, contrary to one HRS recommendation but consistent with another, and …

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.


Opinion of the Court
SHARP, Judge.

SHARP, Judge.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appeals an order of disposition on the authority of In the Interest of J.C., 548 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 788 (Fla.1990) and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We remand this cause to the trial court to clarify whether J.T.H. has been adjudicated a delinquent. If so, the court is empowered to commit the child to HRS pursuant to section 39.11(1); Florida Statutes (1989) and section 39.053(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1990).1

The court’s order required HRS to place J.T.H. in a long-term inpatient residential treatment facility pursuant to the recommendation of one HRS representative but contrary to the recommendation of another. All of the HRS representatives agreed J.T.H. was “eligible” to be placed in such a facility. However, the order did not require such placement unless funds were available.2

REMANDED for clarification.

GOSHORN, C.J., concurs.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only without opinion.

. In this case the court stated that "adjudication of delinquency had been taken under advisement."

. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. J.T.H., 595 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
    …ed HRS to place J.T.H. in a long-term, inpatient, residential treatment facility if funds were available. We initially affirmed the order, but remanded to the trial [*212] court to clarify whether the court had adjudicated J.T.H. to be a delinquent. 586 So. 2d 516. A successor judge has now responded that the adjudication was taken under advisement, but no order was rendered. Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the order appealed because the court had no power to commit J.T.H. pursuant to sections 39.1…
  • Cleveland Rosier v. State, 655 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
    …contest to grand thefts, burglary of a structure, and burglaries of conveyances. Rosier’s initial sentence as an habitual felony offender was reversed per cu-riam due to the absence of record support for his prior criminal history. Rosier v. State, 586 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Rosier was resentenced on March 10, 1992, as an habitual offender, to a combination of concurrent and consecutive five-year sentences in three cases, for a total of twenty-five years in prison. This court affirmed per curiam Ros…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw