FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES, RELATOR,
v.
THE HONORABLE GEORGE L. PATTEN AS CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BRADFORD COUNTY, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a circuit judge from authorizing a sheriff to make juvenile detention decisions. The court denied the petition, holding that a judge has jurisdiction under juvenile procedure rules to delegate detention decisions to persons other than intake officers in appropriate circumstances.
A court of competent jurisdiction may provide for detention decisions to be made by persons other than the intake officer when appropriate circumstances exist and the rules contemplate such special judicial orders.
[1] A writ of prohibition is not available to test the correctness of a trial court's order when the order is within the trial court's jurisdiction.
[2] Under Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.040, special judicial orders may authorize detention decisions to be made by individuals other than the intake officer.
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“under appropriate circumstances Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.040 contemplates that a court of competent jurisdiction may provide for detention decisions to be made by other than the intake officer”
Establishes the holding that judges may delegate detention decisions under the rules
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA circuit judge entered a special judicial order authorizing the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Bradford County to determine whether a juvenile should b…
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 Suggestion For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator has instituted an action entitled “Suggestion for Writ of Prohibition”.
Relator alleges that the respondent Circuit Judge has entered a “special judicial order” authorizing the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Bradford County to make the determination of whether a juvenile shall be detained in cases involving special circumstances and an offense the gravity of which would make it inimical to the interest of the child and the public for said child to remain at large for a period of not more than 48 hours without a court order.
Relator contends that the respondent has no jurisdiction to enter such an order, contending that under Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Rule 8.040, the decision of whether a child should be detained is vested exclusively with the intake officer. A reading of the rule however reflects that it *321contemplates special judicial orders may be entered providing that such decisions may be made by one other than the intake officer.
It is clear, therefore, that under appropriate circumstances Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.040 contemplates that a court of competent jurisdiction may provide for detention decisions to be made by other than the intake officer. We have no knowledge as to the circumstances underlying the order sought to be assailed by the instant proceeding and thus make no judgment as to its correctness. Nor can we do so, since it is not the office of an action in prohibition to test the correctness of orders rendered by a trial court where such orders are within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Accordingly, the suggestion for writ of prohibition not having stated a prima facie case, the same must be and is hereby denied.
SPECTÓR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.