Smith v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Smith v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

509 So. 2d 1157, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1516, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8928

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1987

DocketNo. 86-3050

StatusPublished

This text of 509 So. 2d 1157 (Smith v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) 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

Smith v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 509 So. 2d 1157, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1516, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8928 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for the permanent removal of two children from their mother, the mother appeals from a nonfinal order denying her motion for the release of the children from HRS custody. We affirm.

We do not conclude that a memorandum which HRS filed with the court insufficiently provided the written reasons required by section 409.168(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), for the delay in the permanent commitment process. Also, we conclude that the argument that that section, by permitting such a delay, was unconstitutional is without merit.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this action for the permanent removal of two children from their mother, the mother appeals from a nonfinal order denying her motion for the release of the children from HRS custody. We affirm.

We do not conclude that a memorandum which HRS filed with the court insufficiently provided the written reasons required by section 409.168(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), for the delay in the permanent commitment process. Also, we conclude that the argument that that section, by permitting such a delay, was unconstitutional is without merit.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 1157, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1516, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1987.