K.B., 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.
K.B., a juvenile, appeals his adjudication as delinquent and commitment to a moderate risk residential placement that deviated from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation for a low risk placement. The court affirmed the delinquency adjudication but reversed the disposition, requiring the trial court to provide sufficient statutory findings on remand explaining why its placement recommendation differed from the Department's.
The trial court's adjudication of delinquency is affirmed, but the disposition order is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to satisfy statutory requirements under section 985.23(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The trial court must explain on remand why its consideration of evidence led to a different conclusion than the Department's recommendation and how the placement restrictiveness level relates to K.B.'s needs.
[1] A trial court ordering a juvenile placement at a different restrictiveness level than recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice must state for the record the reas…
[2] Reasons supporting a trial court's deviation from a juvenile placement recommendation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[t]he court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.”
Establishes the statutory requirement under section 985.23(3)(e), Florida Statutes for trial courts to provide explicit reasons when deviating from the Department's placement recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.B. was adjudicated delinquent by the trial court and committed to a moderate risk residential placement. The Department of Juvenile Justice had reco…
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 Residential Placement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
K.B., a child, appeals a final disposition order that adjudicated K.B. delinquent and committed him to a moderate risk residential placement. This commitment deviated from the recommendation made by the Department of Juvenile Justice (the Department) to commit K.B. to a low risk residential placement. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In section 985.23(3)(e), Florida Statutes (2005), the legislature has mandated that, where the trial court orders placement at a different restrictiveness level than the level recommended by the Department,
[t]he court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department.
Our opinions make clear that the reasons set forth by the trial court in support of a deviation from the recommendation of the Department 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. J.W.M. v. State, 911 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); N.B. v. State, 911 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); 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). Further, where the trial court’s deviation is based on evidence or factors already considered by the Department, the trial court must explain why such evidence led the court to reach a conclusion which differs from the Department’s. J.W.M. v. State; S.C. v. State; D.R.B. v. State; E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In the order on appeal, the trial court failed to satisfy the statutory requirements in that it did not explain why its consideration of the same evidence and factors considered by the Department in its recommendation led the court to a different conclusion than that recommended by the Department or how the restrictiveness level related to the needs of the child. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency, but reverse the disposition and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ALLEN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
P.Y. v. State, 976 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…is requires a more restrictive disposition to protect the public.” The trial judge erred by failing to explain why or how he reached a different conclusion than the DJJ based on facts already set out in the predisposition report. See K.B. v. State, 923 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“[W]here the trial court’s deviation is based on evidence or factors already considered by the Department, the trial court must explain why such evidence led the court to reach a conclusion which differs from the Departmen…
-
A.S. v. State, 934 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…he PDR. DJJ also took into account appellant’s needs. Given DJJ’s consideration of these facts, the trial court was required to explain why it reached a different conclusion. Yet, it failed to do so. This failure warrants reversal. See K.B v. State, 923 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court failed to explain why its consideration of the same factors considered by DJJ in its recommendation led it to different conclusion than DJJ); D.B. v. State, 923 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Authorities Cited
- E.S.B. v. State, 822 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- N.B. v. State, 911 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- 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)
- J.W.M. v. State, 911 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)