S.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 a juvenile commitment disposition because the trial court failed to adequately explain its departure from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation with reference to the child's needs and characteristics.
A trial court's departure from the Department of Juvenile Justice's commitment recommendation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence with explicit reference to the child's needs and the restrictiveness level, and must explain why the evidence led to a different conclusion than the Department's.
[1] A trial court departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice's commitment recommendation must support its decision with competent, substantial evidence referring to th…
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 intelligenceS.C., a child, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice by the trial court, which departed from the Department's…
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 Needs Of The Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
S.C., a child, appeals the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency and commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Because the trial court erred in departing from the Department’s commitment recommendation, we reverse.
The reasons set forth by the trial court in support of departure must be supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the trial court’s reasoning must refer to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level in relation to the needs of the child. A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Where the trial court’s departure is based on evidence or factors considered by the Department, the trial court must explain why such evidence led the court to reach a different conclusion than the Department did. E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Here, the trial court failed to refer to the needs of the child or explain why its consideration of the evidence led to a different conclusion than that recommended by the Department. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency but reverse the disposition and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
DAVIS, LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.B. v. State, 911 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ecause the trial court failed to refer to the needs of the child or explain why factors considered by the Department led the trial court to a different conclusion.” D.R.B. v. State, 876 So. 2d 700, 700-01 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). See also S.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); E.S.B., 822 So. 2d at 581; S.L.K v. State, 776 So. 2d 1062, 1063-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244, 1247-48 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); A.C.N., 727 So. 2d at 370-71. Reversed and remanded. PADOVANO and BROWN…
-
J.L.K. v. State, 894 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), because the trial court failed to reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness levels in relation to the needs of the child. See also D.R.B., Jr., v. State, 876 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); S.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). In C.C.B. the court gave the following reasons for departure: The trial court, in departing from the DJJ’s recommendation, stated that “these particular types of offenses,” or bomb threats, must be a factor that goes into the…
-
C.J. v. State, 923 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The trial court erred because it failed to refer to the needs of the child or explain why its consideration of the evidence led to a different conclusion than that recommended by the Department. S.C. v. State, 877 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); D.R.B. v. State, 876 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The trial court’s reasons for disagreement were a restatement of facts already known to the Department without an explanation of the reasons for coming to a different conclusi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- A.G. v. State, 737 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)