IN THE INTEREST OF M.C., A CHILD
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.
A juvenile petitioner sought habeas corpus relief after being held in secure detention at a regional juvenile detention center for more than the statutory five-day maximum period before placement into a commitment program. The court granted the petition, finding a violation of section 959.12, Florida Statutes, while noting this was part of a systemic problem affecting multiple juveniles due to insufficient treatment program capacity.
The court granted the petition for habeas corpus relief, finding that the juvenile was unlawfully detained beyond the five-day statutory maximum period. Although the case became factually moot due to the child's eventual placement, the court ruled the controversy was capable of repetition yet evading review and therefore could be decided on its merits.
[1] A juvenile's detention beyond the statutory maximum period before placement in a commitment program presents a controversy capable of repetition yet evading review, allow…
[2] The repeal of a statute governing juvenile detention periods does not necessarily moot a case challenging past violations of that statute, particularly when the issue is…
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 petition for writ of habeas corpus is another case in which a juvenile, this time petitioner M.C., has been in secure detention at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center for more than the five day maximum period before placement into a commitment program as required by section 959.12, Florida Statutes (1989).”
Establishes the core violation—detention exceeding the statutory five-day maximum period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.C., a juvenile, was detained at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center awaiting placement in a program for mentally disturbed children. The …
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 Florida Juvenile Justice Act cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1039] WARNER, Judge.
This petition for writ of habeas corpus is another case in which a juvenile, this time petitioner M.C., has been in secure detention at the Broward Regional Juvenile Detention Center for more than the five day maximum period before placement into a commitment program as required by section 959.12, Florida Statutes (1989). This is only one of many such cases which have been filed in this court; In the Interest of M.N., 556 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); In the Interest of A.B., 553 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (consolidation of sixteen similar cases). In fact, petitions like this one are so common that the public defender’s office uses a form petition and argument to present to this court. And our district is not the only one experiencing this problem. See C.M.T. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 550 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Like the above referenced, this case has become factually moot because of placement of the child, but clearly it is a controversy capable of repetition yet evading review, such that it can be considered on its merits. Therefore we grant the petition but withhold issuance of the writ in'light of the placement.
In this case the child was waiting for a bed in a program for mentally disturbed children. The response notes that often H.R.S. cannot immediately place these juveniles because of lack of space in programs suited to the particular needs of the juvenile. Obviously, this problem is due in large measure to a lack of funding for such programs.
The Legislature has made substantial changes in its juvenile justice system with the passage of The Florida Juvenile Justice Act, Chapter 90-208, effective October 1, 1990. Included in that bill is the repeal of section 959.12, and its replacement with section 39.044(11) which under the facts of this case would have permitted the child to remain in secure detention with court authorization for not more than fifteen days from disposition, excluding Saturday, Sundays and legal holidays. However, even that extension would have been violated in this case, as the child was adjudicated on July 17 and not placed until August 14th.
What this shows us is that all of the legislative changes will mean nothing unless the legislature has committed the resources to expand the treatment programs for juveniles. Hopefully, the recent legislative session did that and will continue to abide by the words of the preamble to Chapter 90-208 which states:
“... Florida must make a major investment in the future that is its children, and, without a major commitment of resources, the needs of these children will not be addressed and the long-term public safety will not be enhanced ...”
LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…own jurisdiction on habeas corpus relief in civil contempt proceedings, and the proper interpretation of Bowen in the conduct of civil contempt proceedings, we address the issues even though Pompey is no longer incarcerated. See In Interest of M.C., 567 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). I. Article I, section 13 of the Florida Constitution states: “The writ of habeas corpus shall be grantable of right, freely and without cost. It shall be returnable without delay. ...” Under Article V, Section 4(b)(3), distric…
-
Z.R. v. State, 596 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ection 39.044(5)(b), we decline to issue the writs of habeas corpus in these cases. COBB, PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Kight v. State, 574 So. 2d 1066 (Fla.1990); In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla.1989); In re Interest of M.C., 567 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Times Publishing Co., Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); P.R. v. Johnson, 541 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Ocala Star Banner Corp. v. Sturgis, 388 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
-
R.L. v. State, 578 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…39.-044(11) have been exceeded. Under section 39.044(11), the transfer to home detention must take place after five days and may not exceed fifteen days after commitment, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Cf. In the Interest of M.C., 567 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Although this young man’s offenses were serious, if there is no placement available to HRS,5 he cannot be held in detention beyond the statutory maximum. We must grant the writ and order R.L. released from detention pending disp…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- B.E.O. v. State, 544 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of C.M.T. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 550 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- In the Interest of M.N., 556 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of A.B., 553 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)