L.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.B. v. State

819 So. 2d 922, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8559, 2002 WL 1332755

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 2002

DocketNo. 3D02-56

StatusPublished

This text of 819 So. 2d 922 (L.B. 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

L.B. v. State, 819 So. 2d 922, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8559, 2002 WL 1332755 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

L.B. appeals from an order of commitment pursuant to the Baker Act, section 394.467, Florida Statutes (2001). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Under most standards of review this case would be moot, as the appellant has been released from involuntary commitment. However, we are bound by the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992), which held that an appeal from a civil commitment under the Baker Act does not become moot solely because the person subject to the order has been released. The court reasoned that collateral consequences of the commitment, specifically the possible imposition of liens and claims for unpaid fees, preserved a viable appeal. Godwin, 593 So.2d 211, 214. See also Swida v. State, 596 So.2d 670 (Fla.1992).

The record on appeal is devoid of any evidence to support the civil commitment. The evaluating physician, who did not speak Portuguese, formulated a diagnosis of appellant, who only spoke Portuguese, that included an apparently nonexistent disorder (“Black Diamond Parkinson’s”) and disorders that would have no bearing on the statutory factors enumerated in section 394.467 (“curvature of the spine”). None of the findings established that: 1) L.B. posed a real and present threat of substantial harm to her well-being; or 2) she was manifestly incapable of surviving even with the help of family; or 3) that there were no less restrictive alternatives. There was no finding that L.B. posed a threat of serious bodily harm to herself or another.

Having done our duty under Godwin, the order under review is REVERSED.

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

PER CURIAM.

L.B. appeals from an order of commitment pursuant to the Baker Act, section 394.467, Florida Statutes (2001). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Under most standards of review this case would be moot, as the appellant has been released from involuntary commitment. However, we are bound by the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (Fla.1992), which held that an appeal from a civil commitment under the Baker Act does not become moot solely because the person subject to the order has been released. The court reasoned that collateral consequences of the commitment, specifically the possible imposition of liens and claims for unpaid fees, preserved a viable appeal. Godwin, 593 So.2d 211, 214. See also Swida v. State, 596 So.2d 670 (Fla.1992).

The record on appeal is devoid of any evidence to support the civil commitment. The evaluating physician, who did not speak Portuguese, formulated a diagnosis of appellant, who only spoke Portuguese, that included an apparently nonexistent disorder (“Black Diamond Parkinson’s”) and disorders that would have no bearing on the statutory factors enumerated in section 394.467 (“curvature of the spine”). None of the findings established that: 1) L.B. posed a real and present threat of substantial harm to her well-being; or 2) she was manifestly incapable of surviving even with the help of family; or 3) that there were no less restrictive alternatives. There was no finding that L.B. posed a threat of serious bodily harm to herself or another.

Having done our duty under Godwin, the order under review is REVERSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

819 So. 2d 922, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 8559, 2002 WL 1332755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lb-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack