A.L.M., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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.L.M., a juvenile found incompetent to proceed in delinquency cases, challenged orders committing him to secure placement with the Department of Children and Families. The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court's orders lacked the requisite clear and convincing evidence to support secure placement under Florida law.
The appellate court held that the trial court's orders lacked the requisite clear and convincing evidence to support secure placement. Although the trial court found that petitioner met criteria for involuntary placement and that no lesser restrictive alternatives existed, the testimony of three psychologists did not support by clear and convincing evidence the finding that there was 'a substantial likelihood' that petitioner would inflict serious bodily harm to himself or others.
[1] A juvenile may be involuntarily placed in secure detention only upon a finding, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a substantial likelihood the juv…
[2] A trial court's finding of a substantial likelihood of future harm, warranting involuntary secure placement of a juvenile, must be supported by clear and convincing evide…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although three psychologists testified, their testimony did not support, by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court's finding that, under section 985.19(3) that there was "a substantial likelihood" that petitioner would inflict serious bodily harm to himself or others so as to warrant his involuntary, secure placement.”
Establishes the core holding that the psychological testimony was insufficient to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required for secure placement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.L.M. was charged with possession of a weapon on school property, battery on a school board employee, and disruption of a school function in January …
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 Involuntary Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner A.L.M. seeks certiorari review and habeas corpus relief following two trial court orders in related juvenile delinquency proceedings which ordered him committed to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) under secure placement pursuant to Section 985.19(3), Florida Statutes and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.095(a)(4). We deny habe-as corpus on the representation of respondent DCF that petitioner is not in its custody. We treat this cause as a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to M.H. v. State, 901 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Petitioner A.L.M. was charged by petition for delinquency in case 06-1833DL with possession of a weapon on school property, and in case 06-585DL with battery on a school board employee and disruption of a school function. The incidents underlying these charges occurred in January, 2006. Petitioner was adjudged incompetent due to mental illness by stipulation. After placement at Sandy Pines residential mental health facility for approximately sixteen months, he was discharged. The State then sought his secure placement.
After hearing testimony and argument on placement, the trial court found that petitioner met the criteria for involuntary placement. In his two orders, the judge found petitioner incompetent to proceed to trial due to behavioral dysregulation as well as oppositional defiant behavior. The judge also found that petitioner’s behavior made it likely he would cause a threat to others at some time in the future, and that it would be more beneficial to him to be placed in a more restricted environment. He found that there were no lesser restrictive alternatives.
Section 985.19(a)(3), (4), Florida Statutes, under which the orders involuntarily committing petitioner were entered, provides the criteria for secure placement along with the requirement that there must be clear and convincing evidence to support the. placement. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.095(a)(3),(4), governing the procedure for cases in which a child is found incompetent to proceed, contains the same standards.
Although three psychologists testified, their testimony did not support, by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court’s finding that, under section 985.19(3) that there was “a substantial likelihood” that petitioner would inflict serious bodily harm to himself or others so as to warrant his involuntary, secure placement. We grant the petition and quash the trial court’s orders.
KLEIN, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.