J.W., FATHER OF J.W., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
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.
Father of a dependent child appeals an order requiring him to participate in a drug court program as a case plan requirement in a dependency proceeding. The court affirms, holding that Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, expressly authorizes courts in dependency cases to require parents to participate in drug court programs upon a showing of good cause, despite the voluntary nature of drug court programs under Section 397.334.
The trial court has authority under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, specifically Section 39.521(l)(b)1, to require a parent in a dependency case to participate in a treatment-based drug court program upon a showing of good cause, notwithstanding the voluntary nature of drug court programs under Section 397.334. If a parent chooses noncompliance, the court may impose appropriate sanctions or make a finding of noncompliance for consideration in determining alternative child placement.
[1] A dependency court has the authority to order a parent to participate in a treatment-based drug court program as a case plan requirement upon a showing of good cause.
[2] A statute authorizing counties to fund voluntary drug court programs for criminal defendants does not preclude a dependency court from ordering a parent to participate in…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Require the parent ... [of a dependent child] to participate in and comply with treatment and services identified as necessary, including, when appropriate and available, participation in and compliance with a treatment-based drug court program established under s. 397.334.”
Statutory authorization for dependency court to require parental participation in drug court programs under Chapter 39
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.W., the father of a dependent child, was ordered by the trial court to participate in a drug court program as part of his case plan in a dependency …
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 Sanctions For Non-Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
J.W., the father of a dependent child, appeals from an order requiring him to participate in a drug court program as a case plan requirement. Appellant highlights that section 397.334, Florida Statutes, which authorizes counties to fund drug court programs for criminal defendants provides that “[e]ntry into ... [the] program shall be voluntary.” § 397.334(2), Fla. Stat. (2011). It also specifies that a “court may order an individual to enter into a pretrial treatment-based drug court program only upon written agreement by the individual.... ” Id. Appellant reasons that since this statute provides only for voluntary drug court programs, the trial judge should have been required to select an alternative drug treatment program when he objected to drug court as a case plan requirement. This argument ignores the applicable provision of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, which expressly authorizes the court in a dependency case, upon a showing of “good cause[,]” to:
Require the parent ... [of a dependent child] to participate in and comply with treatment and services identified as necessary, including, when appropriate and available, participation in and compliance with a treatment-based drug court program established under s. 397.334. In addition to supervision by the department, the court, including the treatment-based drug court program, may oversee the progress and compliance with treatment by a person who has custody or is requesting custody of the child.
§ 39.521(l)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (2011). The evidence in this case supports the trial court’s decision to order intensive drug *1158treatment for this parent. Accordingly, under chapter 39, the trial court had the authority to require Appellant to participate in drug court as a case plan condition. Id. If Appellant chooses noncompliance, the trial court may treat the noncompliance as it would noncompliance with any other case plan condition. See id. (“The court may impose appropriate available sanctions for noncompliance upon a person who has custody or is requesting custody of the child or make a finding of noncompliance for consideration in determining whether an alternative placement of the child is in the child’s best interests.”).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.