Opinion ID: 1644479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Juvenile Court's Departure Disposition

Text: On February 21, 2007, the juvenile court held a disposition hearing pursuant to part VII of chapter 985, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115. Again, disposition hearings provide the forum for the court to perform the legislatively required function of determining the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting provided for under part VII of chapter 985. § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied). Once the juvenile court adjudicates a child delinquent, it considers the PDR, which shall be the result of the multidisciplinary assessment ... and of the classification and placement process, and it shall indicate and report the child's priority needs, recommendations as to a classification of risk for the child in the context of his or her program and supervision needs, and a plan for treatment that recommends the most appropriate placement setting to meet the child's needs with the minimum program security that reasonably ensures public safety. § 985.43(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also § 985.43(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). Thus, the DJJ and the juvenile court's required disposition responsibilities are in accord. They must work together to ensure that the child's disposition provides the most appropriate placement and dispositional services with the least or minimum restrictiveness level necessary to protect public safety. The court shall consider the child's entire assessment and predisposition report and shall review the records of earlier judicial proceedings prior to making a final disposition of the case. § 985.43(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). Furthermore, [t]he court may, by order, require additional evaluations and studies to be performed by the department; the county school system; or any social, psychological, or psychiatric agency of the state. Id. In addition to the PDR and comprehensive assessment, the juvenile court may receive and consider any other relevant and material evidence, including other written or oral reports or statements, in its effort to determine the appropriate disposition to be made with regard to the child. The court may rely upon such evidence to the extent of its probative value, even though such evidence may not be technically competent in an adjudicatory hearing. § 985.433(3), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.115(a). The juvenile court's first responsibility is to determine whether the child should be adjudicated and committed. See § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2007). In making this decision, the court may consider a nonexhaustive list of factors contained in section 985.433(6)(a)(h). If the court determines that it should adjudicate the child and commit him or her to the custody of the DJJ, it is required to state this determination on the record or in writing. See § 985.433(7), Fla. Stat. (2007). The determination shall include a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department, including any determination that the child was a member of a criminal street gang. Id. With regard to the restrictiveness level of any commitment to DJJ custody: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level. The court shall state for the record the reasons that establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department. Any party may appeal the court's findings resulting in a modified level of restrictiveness under this paragraph. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied). In this case, E.A.R. requested the imposition of juvenile probation and placement at the Palm Beach Marine Institute, while the State requested commitment to a moderate- or high-risk DJJ residential facility followed by post-commitment juvenile probation. As part of the disposition process, the juvenile court reviewed the DJJ's professional comprehensive assessment and PDR  which recommended a moderate-risk residential commitment  and also considered live testimony from E.A.R., his legal guardian, and his probation officer. The guardian testified:  E.A.R. did not steal a single check but, rather, took several;  The guardian was concerned that if E.A.R. was not committed to a residential program, he would run away from home or foster care;  The guardian's relationship with her daughter has improved since E.A.R. was taken into custody, as have her daughter's grades; [20]  The guardian no longer trusts E.A.R., so she is not currently willing to take him back into her home;  Crazy White Boys was not a gang, but a group of boys who like the same rap artist. The probation officer testified:  E.A.R. is truly a flight risk;  It was speculative whether E.A.R. was a member of the Cripps gang and whether he formed  pursuant to the legal definition provided in section 874.03, Florida Statutes (2007)  a criminal street gang named Crazy White Boys or CWB, but then reversed course and claimed that no, no, no ... [t]hat has been stated ... in conversations with him; E.A.R. testified: I just wanted to state about the affiliation with gangs, that when I was on the run, yes, I was hanging around the wrong people, who were affiliated with that. I have, since then, put myself aside from those kinds of people and just tried to focus on myself. When I'm out there, ... I'm not affiliated with them; I do not convers[e] with them;... it's not a way of life that I chose to take. During the disposition hearing, the juvenile court conferred with the probation officer and determined that a secure moderate-risk facility was immediately available to house E.A.R. and address his treatment needs. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the hearing, the court adjudicated E.A.R. delinquent, recounted only information contained in the comprehensive assessment and PDR (information which the DJJ had also considered), and then departed from the recommended moderate-risk residential commitment and, instead, committed E.A.R. to a high-risk residential program pursuant to section 985.03(44)(d), Florida Statutes (2007), which states: Programs or program models at this commitment level are residential and do not allow youth to have access to the community, except that temporary release providing community access for up to 72 continuous hours may be approved by a court for a youth who has made successful progress in his or her program in order for the youth to attend a family emergency or, during the final 60 days of his or her placement, to visit his or her home, enroll in school or a vocational program, complete a job interview, or participate in a community service project. High-risk residential facilities are hardware-secure with perimeter fencing and locking doors. Facilities shall provide 24-hour awake supervision, custody, care, and treatment of residents. Youth assessed and classified for this level of placement require close supervision in a structured residential setting. Placement in programs at this level is prompted by a concern for public safety that outweighs placement in programs at lower commitment levels. The staff at a facility at this commitment level may seclude a child who is a physical threat to himself or herself or others. Mechanical restraint may also be used when necessary. The facility may provide for single cell occupancy. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, at a minimum, moderate-risk commitment programs differ from high-risk commitment programs by allowing the juvenile offender supervised access to the community. Further, moderate-risk facilities may be environmentally secure, staff secure, or... hardware-secure, whereas high-risk facilities are hardware-secure. A child committed to a high-risk facility must also pose a demonstrably greater risk to the community than one placed in a moderate-risk facility. Finally, in contrast to high-risk facilities, moderate-risk facilities do not allow for single cell occupancy. Importantly, in addition to these differences, which are apparent from reading section 985.03(44), the anticipated lengths of stay, [21] treatment approaches, and available services vary between DJJ facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code 63E-7.009, 63E-7.016(3)(a)-(c); Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Residential Facilities, http://www.djj.state.fl.us/Residential/ Facilities/index.html (last accessed Jan. 27, 2009); Florida Bar, Florida Juvenile Law and Practice § 8.13 (10th ed.2007). Therefore, a departure disposition may very well affect the length of commitment along with type and extent of rehabilitative treatment and services available to the juvenile. A departure disposition thus represents far more than a simple incremental increase in the restrictiveness level of the juvenile's commitment; rather, it may substantially alter the rehabilitative management of the child. In support of its departure disposition, the juvenile court here provided the following on-the-record reasons: Unfortunately [first], [E.A.R.] has become ungovernable; secondly, he is truly a flight risk; third, gang affiliation; [fourth,] danger to ... the public and society. Page 6 of the P.D.R. talks about his violent outbursts, his potential for harming others, uncontrolled anger. And there's more than support that he is a danger ... to the public. [Fifth,] [h]e's also a substance abuser, starting at the age of thirteen. [Sixth,] I'm going to accept the statements of the probation officer, her review of the Child and looking at what he wrote on his computer and things of that nature. There is gang affiliation here. And for all of those reasons, the Court's going to place him in a Level 8 [high-risk] program. Defense counsel objected on the record and later filed a written objection to the juvenile court's departure disposition. Given these facts, which were included within the DJJ's comprehensive assessment and PDR, the juvenile court did not explain or even attempt to discuss why a high-risk commitment  as opposed to a moderate-risk commitment (which the DJJ recommended in its professional capacity)  provided the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting.  § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied). Through oral and written objections, defense counsel contended that (1) an upward departure was unwarranted because the juvenile court's reasons were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and (2) the court should have measured the restrictiveness level of the commitment program against the rehabilitative needs of E.A.R. to justify the imposition of a high-risk commitment. At a later hearing, held on February 28, 2007, defense counsel asserted that CWB is not a criminal street gang under section 874.03, Florida Statutes (2007), and that the juvenile court had considered bare allegations, rather than evidence, that E.A.R. was a current gang member, which is insufficient to support a departure disposition. Further, defense counsel contended that there was insufficient evidence that E.A.R. was a flight risk or a danger to the community. In response, the State contended that under section 985.433(7)(b), and associated case law, the juvenile court was free to consider the PDR, comprehensive assessment, and relevant evidence and testimony to reach a different conclusion than the DJJ with regard to the appropriate commitment restrictiveness level. In addition, the State claimed that sufficient evidence supported each of the reasons the juvenile court provided in support of its departure disposition. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court upheld its prior imposition of a high-risk residential commitment followed by post-commitment probation. E.A.R. timely filed a notice of appeal.