C.W.R.K.
v.
STEWART-MARCHMAN-ACT-BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE (SMA), DELAND MEN'S RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER (DMRT), ET AL
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 trial court violates the Marchman Act and commits reversible error when it grants a petition for involuntary treatment in the absence of the petitioner by calling and examining the statutorily required qualified professional witness to develop testimony supporting the petition, thereby functioning as the absent petitioner.
[1] Under the Marchman Act, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to establish the requirements for involuntary treatment by clear and convincing evidence at the hearin…
[2] A trial court commits reversible error by granting a petition for involuntary treatment without testimony from a qualified professional who executed the involuntary servi…
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“At the hearing, the burden of proof is 'on the petitioner to establish the requirements for involuntary treatment by clear and convincing evidence.' Additionally, '[o]ne of the qualified professionals who executed the involuntary services certificate must be a witness.'”
Establishes the statutory requirements for Marchman Act proceedings that the trial court must follow.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA service provider filed a petition for involuntary treatment against the appellant. At a two-day hearing, the appellant's counsel objected that no qu…
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 Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2024-0354 LT Case No. 2024-10067-MHDL _____________________________ C.W.R.K.,
Appellant,
v.
STEWART MARCHMAN ACT
BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE
(SMA), DELAND MEN’S
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT
CENTERS (DMRT), et al.,
Appellees. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Mary G. Jolley, Judge.
Richard F. Joyce, Special Assistant Regional Counsel, of the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee, Stewart Marchman Act Behavioral Healthcare (SMA).
No Appearance for Appellee, Deland Men’s Residential Treatment Centers (DMRT).
June 12, 2024
KILBANE, J.
Facts
S.G., the service provider, filed a petition for involuntary treatment alleging that Appellant is unable to remain sober without being mandated to engage in treatment, Appellant’s continued use of illicit substances will most likely have lethal consequences, and Appellant is incapable of appreciating the need for care or make a rational decision regarding the need for care.
A hearing on S.G.’s petition was held over two days. At the end of the first day of the hearing, Appellant’s counsel argued that there was no testimony from a qualified professional who executed the involuntary services certificate as section 397.6957(3) requires. Without a request from the petitioner, and over Appellant’s objection, the trial court continued the hearing so the qualified professional could appear and testify.
On the second day of the hearing, the petitioner was not present, but the health care professional who executed the involuntary services certificate appeared as a witness. The trial court began a colloquy with the health care professional and asked various questions going to the heart of the issues raised in the petition. The health care professional indicated that mandating follow-through with treatment was necessary. Appellant’s counsel objected on the basis that the petitioner was not present, and it was the petitioner’s burden to present the case. The court overruled the objection and granted the petition.
Analysis
Whether the trial court violated the Marchman Act by granting a petition for involuntary services when the petitioner does not appear and present evidence is a question of law reviewed de novo. J.C. v. State, 293 So. 3d 627, 628 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
1 We note that “[t]rial judges must be fair, impartial, and disinterested participants in the proceedings.” Johnson v. State, 114 So. 3d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Vaughn v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 907 So. 2d 1248, 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)). While judges are not foreclosed from asking questions “designed to make previously received ambiguous testimony clear,” such ability is not an invitation to supply essential elements in the case. Sears v. State, 889 So. 2d 956, 959 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing McFadden v. State, 732 So. 2d 1180, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).
WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McFADDEN v. State, 732 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Valentine Sears v. State, 889 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Lane Vaughn v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 907 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Johnson v. State, 114 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- J. W. v. R. W., 293 So. 3d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
- R.S. v. C.P.T., 333 So. 3d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)