DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
SHIRLEY JONES, ET AL., 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 appeals a trial court order requiring it to pay for a psychological evaluation of a natural mother in a child dependency proceeding. The appellate court reversed, holding that neither statute nor rule authorized the court to compel HRS to pay for such services absent statutory authorization, a constitutional right, or inclusion in a performance agreement.
The trial court erred in ordering HRS to pay for the evaluation. A court order requiring HRS to pay for such services must be supported either by statutory authorization or by a showing that the parent has a constitutional right to the services, such as where proceedings could result in permanent loss of parental rights or where the Department requires the services as part of a performance agreement.
[1] A trial court may order the Department of Children and Families (formerly HRS) to pay for an evaluation of a parent in a dependency action only if statutory authorization…
[2] A constitutional right to payment for an evaluation may arise when dependency proceedings could result in the permanent loss of parental rights.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Generally, a trial court's order requiring HRS to pay for such services must be supported either by statutory authorization or a showing by the recipient parent of a constitutional right to the services, ie., where the proceedings could result in a permanent loss of parental rights or where the Department requires the services to be undertaken prior to the parent being reunited with the child (listed responsibility in performance agreement).”
Establishes the legal standard for when HRS must pay for evaluative services in dependency proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dependency action involving five children, the guardian ad litem filed a motion for a psychological evaluation of the natural mother to assist in…
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 Dependency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in ordering HRS to pay for an intelligence evaluation for a natural mother who was involved in a dependency action regarding five of her children. The record indicates that the guardian ad litem for the children filed a motion for evaluation of the natural mother pursuant to Rule 8.250(b), Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, arguing that an evaluation of the natural mother’s mental faculties was essential to assist in the determination of a proper placement. The cost was approximately $150.00.
At the hearing, the attorney for HRS stated that no one opposed the motion, however, HRS did not have' the funding to pay for it. In any event, the trial court ordered the natural mother to submit to a psychological evaluation and further mandated that the test should be arranged and paid for by HRS.
Generally, a trial court’s order requiring HRS to pay for such services must be supported either by statutory authorization or a showing by the recipient parent of a constitutional right to the services, ie., where the proceedings could result in a permanent loss of parental rights or where the Department requires the services to be undertaken prior to the parent being reunited with the child (listed responsibility in performance agreement). In Interest of J.W., 591 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); In Interest of N.W., 506 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also In Interest of D.J.S., 563 So. 2d 655, 669, 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (where performance agreement dealt with parents undergoing psychological evaluation, HRS should offer the evaluation at their expense as one of their responsibilities under the performance agreement unless the parent expressly undertakes to accept the financial responsibility).
In the instant case, neither section 39.407(13), Florida Statutes, nor Rule 8.250(b) provides any authority for the court to force HRS to pay for such a service. Additionally, the natural mother was represented by counsel and there was never any threat of termination of parental rights or permanent separation. Finally, the intelligence evaluation was not made a part of any performance agreement.
Accordingly, that portion of the order of April 8, 1993 appealed from, which required HRS to pay for the psychological evaluation (intelligence evaluation) is reversed.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Kahn, 639 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…e absence of legislative authority, HRS cannot be held financially responsible for the cost of a professional service incurred where no constitutional right to the service exists. See, e.g., Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Jones, 631 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (intelligence evaluation); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Seivices v. Ortiz, 627 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (psychological evaluation of natural mother); In Interest of J.W., 591 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (coun…
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Platt, 675 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In Ortiz, this court held that HRS was not financially responsible for the cost of the psychological evaluation of a parent undertaken in a dependency context. See also Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Jones, 631 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Thus, in this case, it was the parents who, at least in the first instance, were financially responsible for payment of the psychologist’s bill. If the parents assert indigency, a hearing on that issue should be held. In the ev…
Authorities Cited
- IN the Interest OF D.J.S. and J.S.G. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 563 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of N.W., 506 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- In the Interest of J.W., 591 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)