Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. State

516 So. 2d 1094, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2905, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11553, 1987 WL 2771

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 1987

DocketNo. 87-202

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 1094 (Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. State, 516 So. 2d 1094, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2905, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11553, 1987 WL 2771 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

In committing the child involved in these proceedings to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) after an adjudication of delinquency, the trial court ranked two of the three placement options submitted by HRS, but refused to rank the third option. The refusal of the trial judge to rank all the placement options presented by HRS is in violation of the mandatory dictates of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). See In Re Interest of K.J.M., a child, 495 So.2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Because the trial judge cannot select the placement options but can only rank them in priority order, and because the “training school” option was not ranked as either priority one or priority two, it should have been ranked as priority three, and the order appealed from is hereby modified so as to reflect such third ranking. As so modified, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as modified.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORFINGER, Judge.

In committing the child involved in these proceedings to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) after an adjudication of delinquency, the trial court ranked two of the three placement options submitted by HRS, but refused to rank the third option. The refusal of the trial judge to rank all the placement options presented by HRS is in violation of the mandatory dictates of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). See In Re Interest of K.J.M., a child, 495 So.2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Because the trial judge cannot select the placement options but can only rank them in priority order, and because the “training school” option was not ranked as either priority one or priority two, it should have been ranked as priority three, and the order appealed from is hereby modified so as to reflect such third ranking. As so modified, the order is affirmed.

AFFIRMED as modified.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 1094, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2905, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11553, 1987 WL 2771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack