IN RE D.J.P., A CHILD. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
INA INSURANCE COMPANY AND MARY RAZZANO, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a juvenile delinquency case, the trial court ordered the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to pay $2,500 in restitution without notice or opportunity to be heard. The appellate court reversed this restitution order, finding it lacked statutory authority and violated due process because HRS was not given notice or a hearing.
The trial court's order requiring HRS to pay restitution was unlawful and reversed because: (1) it was entered against HRS without notice or opportunity to be heard, violating due process; and (2) it lacked statutory authority, as the only statute authorizing restitution for a child's misbehavior (section 39.11(1)(g), Fla. Stat. 1985) applies only to parents.
[1] A court order requiring a state agency to pay restitution without notice or an opportunity to be heard is unlawful.
[2] A court order requiring a state agency to pay restitution without statutory authority is unlawful.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This order was entered against HRS without giving HRS notice or an opportunity to be heard. For that reason it is not a lawful order.”
Establishes that due process violation renders the order unlawful when a party is not given notice and opportunity to be heard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was found delinquent and placed under community control supervision. The trial court entered a "Community Control Order" that, among other con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order in a juvenile delinquency case.
In an order entitled “Community Control Order” the court found a child to be delinquent and released him to the custody of his parent or legal custodian “under the supervision of the Counselor of this Court” for an “Indeterminate Length of Time.” The court then listed various things the child must do after release to the custody of his parent or legal custodian.
In another paragraph of the order the judge required:
(10) That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Gainesville, Florida is Court-Ordered to pay restitution to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in the amount of $2,500.00. This amount is to be paid in full withing [sic] sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. The money is to be disbursed to:
(A) Mary Razzano, c/o Attorney, Jason E. Pearl, 19 South High Street, PO Box 183, New Britain, Connecticut. $333.33
(B) INA Insurance Company, PO Box 4338, Winter Park, Florida. Claim Number 660P5622992. (Mr. Richard Wright, Adjustor).$2166.67
This order was entered against HRS without giving HRS notice or an opportunity to be heard. For that reason it is not a lawful order. This order was also made without any statutory authority therefor. For that reason also it is not a lawful order. In the event the trial judge thought he had authority to order HRS to pay restitution because the child was in the custody of HRS at the time of the delinquent act, then we point out that the only statutory provision which requires anyone to pay restitution on account of a child’s misbehavior is section 39.11(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1985), and that only pertains to parents.
No appeal by the child of any other portion of the order is before us so we reverse only paragraph ten of the appealed order. REVERSED IN PART.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brinson v. State, 606 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…tice and an opportunity to be heard on the restitution order. See Anderson v. State, 556 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Fitzpatrick v. State, 553 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Singletary v. State, 530 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); In re D.J.P., 503 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Although the order of restitution recites it was entered pursuant to a motion made by the state, the motion is not in the record. Nor is any notice to Brinson and his attorney in the record. Further, the order recites it was e…