DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, PETITIONER,
v.
C.R.C., A CHILD, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2004-03-05
No. 5D03-2333
SAWAYA, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
867 So. 2d 592 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2004) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Department of Children and Families petitioned to vacate an order adjudicating a minor incompetent to proceed and committing him to DCF for treatment. The court reversed, finding the trial court departed from statutory requirements by ordering commitment based on mental illness when the examining psychologists' reports showed incompetency was based solely on age and immaturity, not mental illness or retardation.


Holding

The court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering commitment to DCF without competent substantial evidence supporting a finding of mental illness or retardation. Section 985.223(2) requires that only children found incompetent due to mental illness or retardation may be committed to DCF; children found incompetent for other reasons, including age or immaturity, must not be committed to DCF.


Headnotes

[1] A child adjudicated incompetent to proceed must not be committed to the Department of Children and Families for treatment or training if the incompetency is due to age or…

[2] Commitment of a child to the Department of Children and Families for treatment or training requires a finding of mental illness or retardation, supported by competent sub…

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

Key Quotes

“A child who is mentally ill or retarded, who is adjudicated incompetent to proceed, and who has committed a delinquent act or violation of law, either of which would be a felony if committed by an adult, must be committed to the Department of Children and Family Services for treatment or training. A child who has been adjudicated incompetent to proceed because of age or immaturity, or for any reason other than for mental illness or retardation, must not be committed to the department or to the Department of Children and Families for restoration of competency treatment or training.”

Establishes the statutory distinction between categories of incompetent children and permissible grounds for DCF commitment

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

A child was charged with shooting a BB gun at a passing railroad train. The trial court received evaluations from two examining psychologists who foun…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PETERSON, J.

PETERSON, J.

Petitioner, the Department of Children and Families, (“DCF”), petitions for a writ of certiorari to vacate an order adjudicating the respondent, C.R.C.,1 a minor, incompetent to proceed after being charged with shooting a BB gun at a passing railroad train. The trial court committed C.R.C. to DCF for placement in a community treatment program. The order specified that based on the written reports of two doctors, C.R.C. does not meet the criteria for competency due to mental illness.

We agree with DCF that the court departed from the essential requirements of the law in ordering C.R.C.’s placement with DCF because the record does not support a finding of mental illness or mental retardation as required by section 985.223(2), Florida Statutes (2002).2

The order under review is a form order with the names of the two examiners listed. The trial court noted the following in its findings of fact: “1. Defendant does not meet the criteria for competency. 2. Defendant does not meet criteria for involuntary commitment.”

Section 985.223(2) provides:

A child who is mentally ill or retarded, who is adjudicated incompetent to proceed, and who has committed a delinquent act or violation of law, either of which would be a felony if committed by an adult, must be committed to the Department of Children and Family Services for treatment or training. A child who has been adjudicated incompetent to proceed because of age or immaturity, or for any reason other than for mental illness or retardation, must not be committed to the department or to the Department of Children and Families for restoration of competency treatment or training. (Emphasis added).

In the instant case, the trial court received two reports from the examining psychologists indicating that the child was not competent to proceed to trial based only on the child’s age and understanding; neither examiner based the finding of in competency on mental illness or retardation. However, the form order indicates the child was found to be incompetent due to mental illness and was committed to DCF for restoration of competency. The findings are not supported by the written reports of the examiners and the order departs from the essential requirements of the law by ordering commitment pursuant to section 985.223 without competent substantial evidence to support the finding of mental illness or retardation.

We grant the petition, issue the writ, quash the commitment order, and remand for further proceedings.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; ORDER QUASHED; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . The respondent did not file a response to this petition although we granted its motion to extend the time for a response.

. If at any time during delinquency proceedings the trial court has reason to believe that a child is incompetent, an evaluation of the child's mental condition shall be ordered. § 985.223(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). All determinations of competency shall be made at a hearing based upon the evaluation of not less than two and not more than three examiners. § 985.223(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). All court orders determining incompetency must include specific written findings by the court as to the nature of the incompetency and whether the child requires secure or nonsecure treatment. § 985.223(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • M.H. v. State, 901 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
    …4). Where competent, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding regarding competency or involuntary commitment, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. C.R.C., 867 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); but see K.D., 694 So. 2d at 819 (the appellate court’s role is not to reweigh the evidence and the trial court’s ruling will be upheld where any theory or principle of the law supports the trial court’s ruling based on the evide…
  • Dep't OF Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
    …iew in cases where a trial court allegedly exceeded its judicial authority by encroaching on the powers of the executive branch by ordering it to take some action not permitted under the law. See, e.g., Department of Children and Families v. C.R.C., 867 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (where minor was found to be incompetent to proceed in delinquency case, trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering juvenile’s placement with Department of Children and Families because the record did…
  • …l evidence does not support the trial court’s finding regarding competency or involuntary commitment, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law.” M.H., 901 So. 2d at 200; see also Dep’t of Children & Families v. C.R.C., 867 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). When considering whether a defendant is competent to proceed, the question for the trial court is “whether [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understan…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw