In re J.M.

40 Fla. Supp. 149
CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County
DecidedJanuary 22, 1974
DocketFamily No. 72-2596 JF. Case Nos. 73-1829 D, 2220 D, 2476 D, 2810 D
StatusPublished

This text of 40 Fla. Supp. 149 (In re J.M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re J.M., 40 Fla. Supp. 149 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1974).

Opinion

WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE, Circuit Judge.

These causes came on to be heard on January 14, 1974 for review, and present was Mr. Andrew Hurme of the State Division of Youth Services, who presented a report of the Florida School for Boys at Okeechobee dated January 9, 1974, to which were attached a program review summary dated January 9, 1974, and reports from Luis R. Fumero, M.D., consulting psychiatrist dated December 14, 1973 and January 5, 1974.

The court notes from the aforementioned reports that J. M., age 16, was in mid December 1973 neither adjusting to the program at Okeechobee nor receiving the care suggested by the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ Regional Inter-Agency Council and ordered by this court on October 15, 1973. By early January 1974, however, the reports indicate that he was then “making progress in our program”, and the consulting psychiatrist recommended that he remain in the program. It is not indicated whether or not he has received the complete neurological evaluation and EEG recommended by the psychiatrist, nor whether or not he is receiving any medical, behavioral, educational, or [151]*151vocational care specifically designed for a delinquent child of borderline retarded intellectual capacity.

The court, at this late date in these proceedings, must conclude that there is no program in existence within the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services designed for the so-called “retarded delinquent”, and the court must further conclude that the program presently being offered this child is an inadequate substitute for the care which he needs and to which he has a legal right.1

Whereas he may graduate from the state school program and be furloughed to the community, the court questions whether he will have then received sufficient vocational rehabilitation, treatment for his behavioral patterns, and remedial education so as to enable him to function successfully back in his community upon furlough — even with the additional care then to be provided by the State Division of Youth Services and other governmental agencies.

[152]*152It is thereupon ordered and adjudged that this cause shall recur for further review hearing at least thirty days prior to the date of the anticipated furlough of this child (with written reports to be provided every two months in the interim) and that said reports shall reflect evaluation, care and treatment in keeping with this child’s needs.

A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Bureau of Field Services to the superintendent of the Florida School for Boys at Okeechobee, to the director of tne State Division of Youth Services, the director of the Division of Retardation, the superintendent of Sunland Training Center at Opa Locka, and to the secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitatives Services of the state of Florida. Further, a copy of this order witn the child’s name deleted, shall be forwarded to the chairman or tne scnooi board or Uade County and the superintendent of schools, Dade County Public Schools.

It is further ordered that this court shall retain jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of making such further or other orders herein for the welrare of any child named herein as may be from time to time found necessary.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Fla. Supp. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jm-flacirct11mia-1974.