R.V., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's placement of a juvenile in a moderate risk commitment program because the court failed to articulate required findings under E.A.R. v. State regarding why the moderate risk placement better served the juvenile's rehabilitative needs in the least restrictive setting.
A trial court must articulate specific findings explaining why a moderate risk commitment program better serves a juvenile's rehabilitative needs in the least restrictive setting when departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended low risk placement.
[1] When a trial court departs from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended placement for a juvenile, it must articulate findings explaining why the alternative plac…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.V. was committed to a moderate risk commitment program based on the nature of his offenses and perceived danger to himself and the community.…
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 Juvenile Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
R.V. appeals the trial court’s failure to hold a competency hearing and its disposition order placing him in a moderate risk commitment program. We affirm as to the former. As to the latter, R.Y. argues that the trial court erred in departing from the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommended placement in a low risk commitment program because the trial court failed to comply with the requirements as *536set forth in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). We agree and reverse.
The trial court committed R.V. to the moderate risk commitment program due to the nature of the offenses committed and because he presents a danger to himself and the community that could not be adequately addressed by a low risk facility. However, the trial court did not articulate why a moderate risk commitment program was better suited than the Department’s recommendation to serving R.V.’s rehabilitative needs, in the least restrictive setting, and protecting the public as E.A.R. requires. Id. at 638. On remand, the trial court must either amend the disposition order to include the required findings that would support a moderate risk commitment program or, if such findings cannot be made, enter a new order imposing the Department’s recommendation of a low risk commitment program.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
POLEN, GROSS, JJ., and SHAHOOD, GEORGE A., Senior Judge, concur.