From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

St. Dept. of H. R. Serv. v. Nourse

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 14, 1983
437 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Summary

holding that courts have no jurisdiction to direct specific placement of committed defendants

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

Opinion

No. 83-591.

September 14, 1983.

Petition from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

Steven W. Huss, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and K.C. Collette, Dist. IX Legal Counsel, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, for petitioners.

Philip G. Nourse, Fort Pierce, respondent.


The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeks prohibition. Although this case is now moot, we shall consider it because of its effect upon the administration of the juvenile system and on similar cases. The trial court ordered the Secretary of Health and Rehabilitative Services to personally confine the juvenile to a secure facility and guard her, if necessary. The court had no jurisdiction to direct a specific placement and treatment of an individual committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. State ex rel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Sepe, 291 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Also see Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division of Mental Health, South Florida State Hospital v. State, 338 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We note, however, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services did place the juvenile in question in the facility ordered by the trial court, and a short time thereafter advised the trial court that the juvenile had again escaped. This juvenile is 13 years old and has run away from home or escaped from HRS facilities on at least eleven occasions. Both the trial court and HRS have exhibited extreme frustration over these unfortunate events. While the juvenile was in the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, she most recently escaped while on an off-campus visit with her parents. We wish we had the answers. We do not. Prohibition is granted because the court does not have the jurisdiction to manage the details of how the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services will attempt to rehabilitate juveniles.

PROHIBITION GRANTED.

DOWNEY and HERSEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

St. Dept. of H. R. Serv. v. Nourse

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Sep 14, 1983
437 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

holding that courts have no jurisdiction to direct specific placement of committed defendants

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

holding trial court did not have jurisdiction to direct a specific placement and treatment of a person committed to the Department

Summary of this case from Agency v. Carlisle

holding trial court did not have jurisdiction to direct a specific placement and treatment of a person committed to the Department

Summary of this case from Agency v. Reynolds

In State ex rel. HRS v. Nourse, 437 So.2d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), this Court granted a petition for writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to direct specific placement and treatment of a juvenile committed to HRS, since the court did not have jurisdiction to manage details of how HRS will attempt to rehabilitate juveniles.

Summary of this case from State v. Schreiber
Case details for

St. Dept. of H. R. Serv. v. Nourse

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 14, 1983

Citations

437 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

Citing Cases

State v. Schreiber

The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Marion Correctional Inst. v.…

In Interest of L.W

After reviewing these reports, the trial court entered an order that the child be placed in either a…