B.S., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A child declared incompetent to proceed in delinquency proceedings was committed to the Department of Children and Families (DCF), but the trial court then ordered her held in secure detention when DCF could not immediately place her due to lack of available beds. The appellate court granted the child's habeas corpus petition, holding that once the child was committed to DCF, the trial court lost authority to direct her placement or detention.
Once a child is committed to DCF, the trial court loses authority to direct when and where DCF places the child or to order secure detention pending placement. The trial court's order requiring secure detention was error and violated statutory provisions prohibiting detention due to lack of appropriate facilities.
[1] A trial court loses authority to direct the specific placement of a child with the Department of Children and Families once the child has been committed.
[2] A child may not be placed into secure, nonsecure, or home detention care due to a lack of more appropriate facilities.
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“once she was committed, the trial court lost the authority to direct when and where the child should be placed by DCF and that it was error to order her to be held in secure detention pending placement”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts lack authority over DCF placement decisions after commitment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner, a child with numerous delinquency petitions filed against her, was declared incompetent to proceed and committed to DCF. The trial court o…
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 Incompetency To Proceed cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, a child against whom numerous petitions for delinquency were filed, was declared incompetent to proceed pursuant to section 985.19(3), Florida Statutes (2013). The trial court entered an order committing Petitioner to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and ordered that DCF place Petitioner within 24 hours. When DCF subsequently informed the court that placement depended on the availability of open beds, that DCF would be unable to place the child as directed, and that Petitioner would be released to the custody of her family until a space became available, the court rendered another order that required Petitioner to be held in secure detention until DCF is able to place her.
Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, correctly contending that once she was committed, the trial court lost the authority to direct when and where the child should be placed by DCF and that it was error to order her to be held in secure detention pending placement. See § 985.24(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2013) (providing that “[a] child alleged to have committed a delinquent act or violation of law may not be placed into secure, nonse-cure, or home detention care ... [d]ue to a lack of more appropriate facilities”); Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.N., 979 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that the trial court’s order requiring DCF to take immediate custody of the juvenile, who was adjudicated incompetent to proceed, for secure placement violated separation of powers); Dep’t of Children & Families v. M.H., 830 So.2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. V.L., 583 So.2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (holding that the requirement that the child be placed within ten days could not be upheld because HRS did not have the funding to comply). We note that Respondent, State of Florida, has filed a Response that agrees with Petitioner’s argument and that requests this court grant the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and order the immediate release of Petitioner into the custody of DCF.
We grant the Petition, quash the Order of the trial court requiring that Petitioner be held in secure detention, and order that Petitioner be immediately released to the custody of DCF.
Petition Granted; order quashed; Writ Issued.
SAWAYA, PALMER, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N. N. R. v. Grice (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…as numbered 985.24(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2021), at the time A.T. was decided, prohibits placement of a child alleged to be delinquent in secure or supervised release detention care due to a lack of more appropriate facilities. See B.S. v. State, 134 So. 3d 1126, 1126 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (holding that once the child was committed to DCF after being declared incompetent, the trial court lost authority to direct where and when she should be placed by DCF and that it was error under section 985.24(2)(d), Flori…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. V.L., 583 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. M.H. & State of Fla., 830 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. B.N. & State of Fla., 979 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)