DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
HON. C. MCFERRIN SMITH, III, CHIEF JUDGE, ETC., 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 chief judge had the discretion to issue an order limiting the number of interviews with child victims and requiring those interviews to be recorded.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services petitioned for certiorari review of an administrative order limiting interviews with child abuse …
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 Administrative Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has petitioned for certiorari review of an administrative order issued by the Honorable C. McFerrin Smith, III, Chief Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court. The order limits the number of interviews which HRS may have with victims of child abuse and/or sexual abuse where the victim is under the age of sixteen. It also provides that those interviews be recorded. We agree that this is within the discretion of the chief judge.
The order was entered on the authority of section 9Í4.16, Florida Statutes (1991). That statute requires the chief judge of each circuit to enter an order limiting child victim interviews.
The chief judge of each judicial circuit, ... shall provide by order reasonable limits on the number of interviews that a victim of a violation of § 794.011, § 800.-04, § 827.03, or § 827.04 who is under 16 years of age must submit to for law enforcement or discovery purposes.
Section 914.16, Florida Statutes (1991). Therefore, the subject order pertains only to interviews relating to conduct proscribed by the specified subsections.
Further, in his response to the petition, Judge Smith states that his order provides for three interviews after the initial one. Although this provision is not clear from the order, it may fairly be implied from the requirement that the person being interviewed be an “alleged victim” — a determination which could not be made until after the initial interview.
The petition for writ of certiorari, accordingly, is denied.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.
DAUKSCH, COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris v. State, 737 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ri is the appropriate remedy when the petition alleges that the chief judge exceeded his jurisdiction in promulgating an administrative order. Morse v. Moxley, 691 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Smith, 618 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Upchurch, 394 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Dep't of Juvenile. Justice v. Soud, 685 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Valdez v. Chief Judge of Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 640 So. 2d…
-
Valdez v. The Chief Judge OF the Eleventh Jud. Cir. OF Fla., 640 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…84). Because the petition alleges that the chief judge exceeded his jurisdiction in promulgating the instant administrative order, certiorari is an appropriate remedy and we have jurisdiction. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Smith, 618 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In the challenged administrative order, the chief judge found that, in the interests of protecting the public safety and reducing the failure to appear rate, a new standard should be applied in considering eligibility for court…
-
THE Honorable Larry L. Eger v. THE Judges of the Twelfth Jud. Cir. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…orari is the appropriate remedy when the petition alleges that the chief judge exceeded his jurisdiction in promulgating an administrative order.")(citing Morse v. Moxley, 691 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Smith, 618 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Upchurch, 394 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Dep't of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Valdez v. Chief Judge of Eleventh Jud. Cir., 640 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 3d DCA 1…