In the Interest of L.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of L.M. v. State

587 So. 2d 648, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10391

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 1991

DocketNo. 91-00967

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 587 So. 2d 648 (In the Interest of L.M. 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

In the Interest of L.M. v. State, 587 So. 2d 648, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10391 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order adjudicating appellant delinquent. At issue is the validity of the requirement, as a condition of community control, that appellant “get with the pastor” of his mother’s church and enroll in any and all of the church’s youth programs.

Requiring a probationer or community eontrollee to submit to a course of religious instruction contravenes the First Amendment. Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362, 1365 (11th Cir.1982). Although the record below does not indicate whether any or all of the youth programs have religious content, the order requires appellant to participate in such programs, regardless of content. This was error. The condition is also erroneous, in that it delegates to the pastor of a church the judicial function of determining those programs best suited to meet appellant’s rehabilitation needs. See Singleton v. State, 582 So.2d 657, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We must, therefore, reverse.

The record is clear, however, that the trial court found that appellant could benefit from participation in youth programs. The trial court may therefore, on remand, impose alternate conditions of community control, including the requirement that appellant attend youth programs of secular content.

BOOTH, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order adjudicating appellant delinquent. At issue is the validity of the requirement, as a condition of community control, that appellant “get with the pastor” of his mother’s church and enroll in any and all of the church’s youth programs.

Requiring a probationer or community eontrollee to submit to a course of religious instruction contravenes the First Amendment. Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362, 1365 (11th Cir.1982). Although the record below does not indicate whether any or all of the youth programs have religious content, the order requires appellant to participate in such programs, regardless of content. This was error. The condition is also erroneous, in that it delegates to the pastor of a church the judicial function of determining those programs best suited to meet appellant’s rehabilitation needs. See Singleton v. State, 582 So.2d 657, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We must, therefore, reverse.

The record is clear, however, that the trial court found that appellant could benefit from participation in youth programs. The trial court may therefore, on remand, impose alternate conditions of community control, including the requirement that appellant attend youth programs of secular content.

BOOTH, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 648, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-lm-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack