5D06-1901 DCF v. K.R.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D06-1901

Case Date: 01/01/2007

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. K.R., FATHER OF K.R., A CHILD, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 5, 2007 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, James C. Hauser, Judge. Charles D. Peters, Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. Case No. 5D06-1901

MONACO, J. The Department of Children and Family Services challenges an order of the trial court requiring the Department to pay for tri-weekly drug tests of K.R., a father who was attempting to regain custody of his daughter. Although the Department filed a notice of appeal in this case, we are unable to discern on what basis we have appellate jurisdiction. We do, however, exercise our authority under Rule 9.040(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, to consider this case on the basis of our certiorari jurisdiction. Because we conclude that the order in question violates the separation of powers doctrine, and thus departed from the essential requirements of law, we grant certiorari

relief. See Dep't of Corr. v. Harrison, 896 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Dep't of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). As part of a case plan developed to accommodate a reunification between K.R. and his child, K.R. agreed to submit to random drug tests. At a status hearing the Department objected to reunification because, among other reasons, K.R. was unable on three occasions to give a urine sample for random drug tests that were performed at his home. The trial court suggested that K.R. be tested three times a week for thirty days, and indicated that if K.R. tested negative on all tests, he would be allowed weekend visitation with his daughter. Although drug tests were offered free of charge if the subject came to the courthouse for testing, the trial court did not want K.R. to miss work. Instead, the court ordered the Department, through its contract agency, to

provide home testing for K.R. without charge, despite the fact that the Department, through its agent, generally charges for at-home testing. Although the Department objected and sought rehearing, the trial court declined to change its ruling. Department then "appealed." Article II,

Download 5D06-1901 DCF v. K.R..pdf