DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, PETITIONER,
v.
J.H., RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that the trial court's order mandating specific, long-term therapy funding for a dependent child was an abuse of discretion, as it ignored DCF's statutory funding limitations.
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) sought review of a trial court order requiring it to fund specific, long-term therapy and evaluations fo…
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 Dependency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Department of Children and Families (DCF) seeks review of an order requiring it to commit to, and to provide funding to pay for therapy and any and all necessary evaluations for a dependent child. The order provides further that therapy must be provided by a specific therapist, and that it must be provided on a long term basis. We treat the appeal as a request for certiorari review and grant relief. Dep’t of Children & Families v. Anderson, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2313, — So. 2d -, 2002 WL 31375079 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct.23, 2002).
Though well intended, the trial court’s order ignores DCF’s funding issues, which were detailed at the hearing. See In re L.W., 615 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 616 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). We reject respondent’s position that this case warrants exercise of the “doctrine of inherent judicial power.” See Rose v. Palm Beach County, 361 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1978).
Our review of the record reflects that DCF was not refusing to fund the requested treatment. At the June 2002 hearing, DCF guaranteed funding through July 1st. DCF could not provide such guarantee for the following fiscal year, but assured the court that there was a 99% probability that the funding would continue after July 1st.
Accordingly, we grant relief and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. In the Interest of J.B., 154 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ver, have rejected the idea that there is a “doctrine of inherent judicial power” that allows a court to direct how an executive department exercises its discretion to spend funds appropriated to the department. Dep’t of Children & Families v. J.H., 831 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding, absent statutory authority, a trial court could not order the Department to pay for long-term therapy by a specific therapist and any and all necessary evaluations for the dependent child). Instead, courts have rep…
Authorities Cited
- Rose v. Palm Beach Cnty., 361 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1978)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. State, 616 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- In the Interest of L.W., 615 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Dep't OF Juv. Just. v. C.M., 704 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)