Opinion ID: 1739016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: W. v. DAVIS

Text: In M.W., the issue before the Court was whether an evidentiary hearing that complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Baker Act was required before a court could order a dependent child in the temporary legal custody of the Department to be placed into residential treatment. M.W., 756 So.2d at 92. In M.W., the child was represented by an attorney appointed by the court; thus, the issue of whether an attorney must be appointed in order to provide the child a meaningful opportunity to be heard was not an issue before this Court. Although the evidentiary hearing in M.W. took place after M.W. was placed in residential treatment, the delay was due to the trial court's scheduling conflicts and there were several non-evidentiary hearings before the trial court approved the placement. See id. at 94-95. In addition, the Department agreed with M.W.'s request for a pre-commitment evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate placement. See id. at 93. Although we concluded that an evidentiary hearing that complied with the Baker Act was not required, we emphasized that our decision should not be construed as precedent for allowing a several-week delay in holding an evidentiary hearing regarding the placement of a dependent child into a residential mental health treatment facility. Id. at 109. We recognized the burden already placed on the dependency court judges, but we also explained that we cannot eschew the necessity for a hearing before a dependent child is placed in residential treatment against his wishes simply because other statutorily mandated hearings are already required or because it would otherwise burden our dependency courts. Id. at 109 (emphasis added). In making the referral to the Committee, we elaborated on certain guiding principles: While the child's best interests may in fact be paramount in the eyes, minds and hearts of every participant in the dependency proceeding, it is important that our procedures in dependency cases ensure that each child is treated with the dignity to which every participant in a dependency proceeding should be entitled. It is true that the dependency court, a citizen review panel, the Department and multiple psychiatrists and psychologists were involved in M.W.'s case and all were concerned with his best interests. However, of paramount concern is the question of whether M.W. perceived that anyone had his best interests at heart when he was placed against his wishes in a locked psychiatric facility without the opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the issue presented by this case extends beyond the legal question of what process is due; rather, this case also presents the question of whether a child believes that he or she is being listened to and that his or her opinion is respected and counts. See generally Gary B. Melton, et al., No Place to Go: The Civil Commitment of Minors 146-47 (1998) (stating that children obtain psychological benefit from procedural protections prior to being placed in psychiatric treatment facilities).... Id. at 107-08. With this in mind, we now turn to the two major concerns raised by the proposed rule as set forth in the minority report and the comments we received.