IN THE INTEREST OF R.V., A CHILD
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.
Florida appellate court reversed an order requiring the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to pay for a child's psychiatric treatment, holding that courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review executive branch discretionary decisions regarding state resource allocation.
Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary acts of the executive branch affecting the use of state resources, including decisions about funding for child welfare services.
[1] Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary budgetary decisions of executive agencies regarding allocation of state resources for child welfare servic…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child lived in foster care in Florida for several years before being released to his mother's custody. A health center in Missouri sought reimbursem…
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 Judicial Review Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appeals from an order requiring it to pay a health center in Missouri $5,487.21 for expenses associated with psychological counseling and/or psychiatric therapy for a child formerly in foster care in Florida. The child had lived in foster care in Florida for a number of years before being released to the custody of his mother. The order must be reversed because the state judiciary lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review discretionary acts of the executive branch affecting the use of state resources. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. State, 593 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (“it is not the judiciary’s role to review legislative appropriations to interfere with an agency’s discretionary budgetary decisions”); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), rev. denied, 591 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1991) (same); and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Brooke, 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (trial court does not have jurisdiction to encroach upon the legislature’s power of appropriation or the executive discretion of HRS concerning the placement of dependent children in specific treatment facilities).
REVERSED.
JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. The Honorable Alban Brooke of the Cir. Court of the Fourth Jud. Cir. In & For Duval Cnty., 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Alma Trudell & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Williams, 593 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 593 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)