K.G,, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's order placing a juvenile in a moderate-risk residential program because the trial court failed to articulate on the record why this placement better served the child's rehabilitative needs and the least restrictive setting requirement established in E.A.R. v. State.
When a trial court departs from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation for juvenile placement, it must articulate on the record specific reasons why the chosen placement better serves the child's rehabilitative needs, protects the public, and complies with the least restrictive setting requirement.
[1] When a trial court departs from the Department of Juvenile Justice's placement recommendation for a juvenile, the court must articulate on the record specific reasons why…
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 intelligenceK.G., a juvenile, was ordered by the trial court into a moderate-risk residential program, departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recomme…
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 Protection Of The Public cases and more on FLexlaw
K.G. appeals the trial court’s order placing him in a moderate-risk residential program. K.G. argues that in departing from the recommendation by the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department) of a minimum-risk day treatment program, the trial court failed to engage in the appropriate level of analysis as set forth in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614, 638 (Fla.2009). We agree. See C.M.H. v. State, 25 So.3d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); M.J.S. v. State, 6 So.3d 1268, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); M.K. v. State, 4 So.3d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Here, the trial court did not articulate on the record why a moderate-risk residential program was better suited than the Department’s recommendation to serving K.G.’s rehabilitative needs, in the least restrictive setting, and protecting the public. See 25 So.3d at 680. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. See C.M.H., 25 So.3d at 680; M.J.S., 6 So.3d at 1270. The trial court is provided with an “opportunity to enter an order in compliance with E.A.R., or, if the trial court cannot, impose the probation recommended by the DJJ.” C.M.H., 25 So.3d at 680; accord M.H. v. State, 69 So.3d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); M.J.S., 6 So.3d at 1270.
REVERSE and REMAND.
DAVIS, PADOVANO, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009)
- M.H. v. State, 69 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- M.J.S. v. State, 6 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- C.M.H. v. State, 25 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Lamont Asberry v. State, 4 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)