DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLANT,
v.
K.R., FATHER OF K.R., A CHILD, 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.
The Department of Children and Families appeals an order requiring it to pay for tri-weekly home drug tests for a father attempting to regain custody. The Florida appellate court exercises certiorari jurisdiction and grants relief, holding that the trial court's order violates the separation of powers doctrine by improperly compelling an executive agency to incur expenses not authorized by statute.
The court held that the trial court's order violated the separation of powers doctrine because the judicial branch may not compel an executive agency to spend appropriated funds in a manner not authorized by statute, nor may it interfere with an agency's discretionary budgetary decisions.
[1] A trial court order compelling a governmental department or agency to pay for a service or incur an expense for a private party violates the separation of powers doctrine…
[2] The judicial branch may not interfere with the legislative branch by requiring funds to be spent by an executive agency in a manner not authorized by statute.
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“The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.”
Constitutional foundation for the separation of powers doctrine that prohibits the judicial branch from compelling executive agencies to incur expenses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.R., a father in a reunification case plan, agreed to submit to random drug tests. At a status hearing, he was unable to provide urine samples on thr…
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 Article Ii, Section 3, Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
The Department of Children and Family Services challengés an order of the trial court requiring the Department to pay for tri-weekly drug tests of K.R., a father who was attempting to regain custody of his daughter. Although the Department filed a notice of appeal in this case, we are unable to discern on what basis we have appellate jurisdiction. We do, however, exercise our authority under Rule 9.040(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, to consider this case on the basis of our certiorari jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the order in question violates the separation of powers doctrine, and thus departed from the essential requirements of law, we grant certiorari relief. See Dep’t of Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Dep’t of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
As part of a case plan developed to accommodate a reunification between KR. and his child, K.R. agreed to submit to random drug tests. At a status hearing the Department objected to reunification because, among other reasons, K.R. was unable on three occasions to give a urine sample for random drug tests that were performed at his home.
The trial court suggested that K.R. be tested three times a week for thirty days, and indicated that if K.R. tested negative on all tests, he would be allowed weekend visitation with his daughter. Although drug tests were offered free of charge if the subject came to the courthouse for testing, the trial court did not want K.R. to miss work. Instead, the court ordered the Department, through its contract agency, to provide home testing for K.R. without charge, despite the fact that the Department, through its agent, genérally charges for at-home testing. Although the Department objected and sought rehearing, the trial court declined to change its ruling. The Department then “appealed.”
Article II, § 3 of the Florida Constitution reads as follows:
Branches of government. — The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
The courts of this state have frequently held that an order of a trial court compelling a governmental department or agency to pay for a service or to incur another expense to the benefit of a private party “interferes with both legislative discretion in determining the funds required of an agency and executive discretion in spending those appropriated funds, in derogation of the doctrine of separation of powers.” Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Grubbs; Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs. v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765, 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (“it is not the role of the judiciary to revise legislative appropriations or to interfere with an agency’s discretionary budgetary decisions”).
The trial court’s order in the present case falls squarely within that proscription. The judicial branch may not either interfere with the legislative branch by requiring funds to be spent by an executive agency in a manner not authorized by statute, nor interfere with an executive agency’s discretion in the spending of appropriated funds. See Harrison, 896 So. 2d at 870. We, therefore, grant certiorari relief with respect to the order directing the Department to pay for the at-home drug testing of K.R. WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED.
THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. In the Interest of J.B., 154 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ith the legislative branch by requiring funds to be spent by an executive agency in a manner not authorized by statute, nor interfere with an executive agency’s discretion in the spending of appropriated funds.” Dep’t of Children & Families v. K.R., 946 So. 2d 106, 107-08 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (emphasis added). Accordingly, unless a statute or a constitution authorizes the court to do so, it is a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers for a court to direct an executive department on how to expend fu…
-
Daly v. Marion Cnty., 265 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…nds to be spent by an executive agency in a manner not authorized by statute ," or "interfere[s] with an executive agency's discretion in the spending of appropriated funds." Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Dep't of Children & Families v. K.R. , 946 So. 2d 106, 107-08 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ). Although the judiciary may not instruct an agency to exercise its discretionary spending, a court has authority to order an agency to comply with a legislative mandate requiring funds to be spent in a particular way.…
-
Dep't of Revenue O/b/o T. H. W. v. D. E. B., 312 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…ative discretion in determining the funds required of an agency and executive discretion in spending those appropriated funds, in derogation of the doctrine of separation of powers." (alteration in original) (quoting Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. K.R., 946 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007))). After all, D.L.B. was not a party and DOR did not request DNA testing. Conclusion The trial court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction as to D.L.B. Allowing the order to stand pending plenary appeal would resu…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Dep't OF Juv. Just. v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)