In the Interest of P.T. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of P.T. v. State

827 So. 2d 1112, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15116, 2002 WL 31307173

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-1511

StatusPublished

This text of 827 So. 2d 1112 (In the Interest of P.T. 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 P.T. v. State, 827 So. 2d 1112, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15116, 2002 WL 31307173 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

P.T., the respondent below, appeals from an order of involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We affirm the order of involuntary commitment. The general master’s report, which provided a summary of the testimony and identified the witnesses who testified regarding P.T.’s transfer to a long-term care facility, satisfies the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(f). See De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So.2d 1276, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“The written record may consist of a narrative summary of the evidence either prepared by the Master or, as indicated above, by some other person acting in a manner consistent with the Rule.”).

However, we reverse the trial court’s appointment of a guardian advocate. The general master found that P.T. was competent to consent to treatment within the meaning of section 394.467(6)(d), Florida Statutes, and therefore determined that a guardian advocate should not be appointed. As the uncontradicted testimony of P.T.’s treating psychiatrist supports this finding, the trial court erred in rejecting the master’s recommendation. See De Clements, 662 So.2d at 1282 (holding that “a Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the Master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.”) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

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

PER CURIAM.

P.T., the respondent below, appeals from an order of involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We affirm the order of involuntary commitment. The general master’s report, which provided a summary of the testimony and identified the witnesses who testified regarding P.T.’s transfer to a long-term care facility, satisfies the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(f). See De Clements v. De Clements, 662 So.2d 1276, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“The written record may consist of a narrative summary of the evidence either prepared by the Master or, as indicated above, by some other person acting in a manner consistent with the Rule.”).

However, we reverse the trial court’s appointment of a guardian advocate. The general master found that P.T. was competent to consent to treatment within the meaning of section 394.467(6)(d), Florida Statutes, and therefore determined that a guardian advocate should not be appointed. As the uncontradicted testimony of P.T.’s treating psychiatrist supports this finding, the trial court erred in rejecting the master’s recommendation. See De Clements, 662 So.2d at 1282 (holding that “a Master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the Master has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.”) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 So. 2d 1112, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15116, 2002 WL 31307173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-pt-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack