CopyCited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2013 WL 6223684, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17380
...court with a copy of a “support plan” for its client, outlining a treatment plan and
showing “that the person has been placed in the most appropriate, least restrictive
and cost-beneficial residential setting.” Id. §
393.11(8)(e).
“Support plans” are governed by section
393.0651 and apply to all APD
clients in non-secure residential services without reference to voluntary or
involuntary admission. See id. §
393.0651. “The ultimate goal of each [support]
plan, whenever possible, shall be to enable the client to live a dignified life in the
least restrictive setting, be that in the home or in the community.” Id. §
393.0651.5
Initial support plans must be developed in consultation with the client, the client’s
parent or guardian, or the client’s appointed advocate. Id. Support plans must then
be reviewed and revised annually in consultation with the same parties and based
on a client’s progress in achieving support plan objectives. Id. §
393.0651(7).
As we have said, the Florida circuit court that makes the first involuntary
admission decision retains jurisdiction over the order and it cannot be changed
4
Section
393.11 does not specify whether the residential service...
...involuntary admission to non-secure residential settings, and we will do the same.
5
A support plan may call for varying degrees of restrictive settings from a developmental
disabilities center (most restrictive) to even the client’s own home. See Fla. Stat. § 393.0651(5).
6
Case: 12-14212 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 7 of 29
without permission from that court....
...ices in a
non-secure setting. Compare id. §
916.303(3) (review for secure settings) with id.
§
393.11 (admission to residential services). A client who disagrees with a support
plan decision may challenge it in an administrative proceeding, id. §
393.0651(8),
but the hearing officer can do nothing to change the original order of involuntary
admission....
...As the
District Court explained, “[i]f he were to ‘elope,’ the police would probably be
called to return him” to his group home. That being said, the scope of the
limitations on J.R.’s movements has changed and will continue to change with
periodic alterations to his support plan pursuant to § 393.0651....
...admission order and restoration of his liberty.” 8
The APD responds that “taken alone, this Court’s ruling in Williams v.
Wallis rebuts each of J.R.’s argument[s].” First, the APD argues that J.R.’s
procedural due process rights are protected because § 393.0651(5) allows periodic
review of support plans designed to find the “most appropriate, least restrictive,
and most cost-beneficial environment for accomplishment of the objectives for
8
The APD argues that “the facts of J.R.’s cas...
...10 The statute requires only that periodic support plan reviews ask whether
the client has been placed in “the most appropriate, least restrictive, and most cost-
beneficial environment for accomplishment of the objectives for client progress.”
Fla. Stat. § 393.0651....
...“eventual release” as a central goal of
periodic medical reviews).
Second, the statute does not provide procedures for the APD if it were to
decide someone should be released from an involuntary admission order. Nothing
on the face of § 393.0651 mandates that the APD, having found a client to no
longer be a danger to himself or to others, should petition the circuit court, the only
body with the power to alter the order. See Fla. Stat. § 393.0651; id....
...sufficient process does not make it such that the statute must be read that way. For
that reason, we certify the following questions to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Questions Certified
1) Does “support plan” review under Fla. Stat. §
393.0651 require the Agency
for Persons with Disabilities to consider the propriety of a continued
involuntary admission to residential services order entered under Fla. Stat.
§
393.11?
28
Case: 12-14212 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 Page: 29 of 29
2) Is the Agency for Persons with Disabilities required, pursuant to Fla. Stat.
§
393.0651 and/or Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 267, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 1055, 2015 WL 2236760
...individuals to residential services under chapter 393, Florida Statutes (2011). We
have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const. Specifically, the Eleventh
Circuit certified the following questions:
1) Does “support plan” review under Fla. Stat. §
393.0651 require the
Agency for Persons with Disabilities to consider the propriety of a
continued involuntary admission to residential services order entered
under Fla. Stat. §
393.11?
2) Is the Agency for Persons with Disabilities required, pursuant to
Fla. Stat. §
393.0651 and/or Fla....
...In 2007, the Legislature authorized the use of the name Department of
Children and Families. See ch. 2007-174, Laws of Fla.
-2-
Upon his admission to nonsecure residential services, J.R. was given a
support plan, and that plan is periodically reviewed and revised under section
393.0651, Florida Statutes. Under section 393.0651, the Agency for Persons with
Disabilities (Agency) is required to conduct an annual support plan review for each
person who receives services from the Agency....
...development and annual revision of support plans that detail “the most
appropriate, least restrictive, and most cost-beneficial environment for
accomplishment of the objectives for client progress and a
specification of all services authorized,” § 393.0651; (2) authorizes
[the Agency]—through the advice of specialists and without court
-4-
involvement—to decide what is “the most appropriate, least
restrictive, and most cost-...
...The Eleventh Circuit expressed doubt regarding whether Florida’s scheme
satisfies these factors. Id. at 971-73. First, the Eleventh Circuit questioned
whether the statutes require the Agency to periodically review involuntary
admission orders. Id. at 971. Section
393.0651 does not explicitly require the
Agency to periodically review involuntary admission orders to determine whether
an admitted person continues to meet the standard for involuntary admission set
out in section
393.11. Id. Instead, section
393.0651 requires the Agency to
annually review whether the client has been placed in “the most appropriate, least
restrictive, and most cost-beneficial environment for accomplishment of the
objectives for client progress.” Id....
...ider only half of the
-6-
ultimate question of whether it is necessary for someone to be involuntarily
admitted to residential services.” Id. at 972.
Second, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that section 393.0651 “does not
provide procedures for the [Agency] if it were to decide someone should be
released from an involuntary admission order.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit
explained that “[n]othing on the face of § 393.0651 mandates that the [Agency],
having found a client to no longer be a danger to himself or to others, should
petition the circuit court [for a client’s release], the only body with the power to
alter the order.” Id....
...PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
J.R. contends that each of the certified questions should be answered in the
negative. He argues that the first certified question should be answered in the
negative because support plan review under section
393.0651, Florida Statutes
(2011), does not require the Agency to consider the continued propriety of an
involuntary admission order. J.R. then argues that the second certified question
should be answered in the negative because neither section
393.0651 nor section
393.11 requires the Agency to petition the circuit court for an individual’s release
from an involuntary admission order when the circumstances that led to the initial
involuntary admission have changed....
...ssion
orders in accordance with Parham and Williams.
-8-
The Agency argues that each of the certified questions should be answered
in the affirmative because the obligations implicit in sections
393.0651 and
393.11
require the Agency to review the continued propriety of an initial involuntary
admission order during annual support plan review and petition the circuit court if
an individual’s circumstances have changed to the point that involuntary admission
is no longer appropriate. The Agency maintains that support plan review provides
the necessary meaningful periodic review. The Agency further contends that this
Court is required to interpret sections
393.0651 and
393.11 in a way that upholds
their constitutionality.
APPLICABLE LAW
Chapter 393, Florida Statutes (2011), addresses the treatment of
developmentally disabled individuals....
...abeas corpus “to
question the cause, legality, and appropriateness of the person’s involuntary
admission” at any time. §
393.11(13), Fla. (2011).
All clients of the Agency must have their support plans reviewed and revised
annually. §
393.0651(7), Fla. Stat. (2011). Section
393.0651 governs support plan
review for clients enrolled in the Agency’s services and states that:
Each plan must include the most appropriate, least restrictive, and
most cost-beneficial environment for accomplishment of the...
...“In developing a client’s annual family or individual support plan, the individual or
family with the assistance of the support planning team shall identify measurable
objectives for client progress and shall specify a time period expected for
achievement of each objective.” § 393.0651(6), Fla. Stat. (2011). “The agency
shall develop and specify by rule the core components of support plans.”
§ 393.0651(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). Clients or their parents, guardians, or client
- 11 -
advocates are permitted to administratively challenge the results of a support plan
or a revision to a support plan. § 393.0651(8), Fla....
...P’ship,
959 So. 2d 176,
185 (Fla. 2007); Rollins v. Pizzarelli,
761 So. 2d 294, 298 (Fla. 2000).
Olmstead v. FTC,
44 So. 3d 76, 82 (Fla. 2010).
We reject the Agency’s argument that we are required to find the implied
obligations in sections
393.0651 and
393.11 because we must interpret the statutes
in a way that upholds their constitutionality. Certified questions one and two ask
us to interpret the provisions of section
393.0651 and
393.11 in order to assist the
Eleventh Circuit in resolving this case....
...f
whether exercising jurisdiction over Marshall would violate due process”).
Support Plan Review
We answer the Eleventh Circuit’s first certified question in the negative
because support plan review under section
393.0651 does not require the Agency
to consider the continued propriety of an involuntary admission order entered
under section
393.11. As the Agency conceded before the Eleventh Circuit, the
- 13 -
requirements for involuntary admission are not explicitly discussed anywhere in
section
393.0651. See J.R. II,
736 F.3d at 971.
Section
393.0651 provides a comprehensive scheme regarding annual
support plan review for the Agency’s clients. Section
393.0651 details who is
involved in a client’s annual support plan review, the factors that must be
considered during the support plan review, and the order in which the various
residential placement options must be considered. Section
393.0651 also requires
that the support plan establish measurable goals for client progress; support plans
for clients who are public school students are coordinated with individual
education plans; and the Agency promulgate rules regarding the core components
of support plans. The statutory scheme also affords the right to an administrative
appeal of the decision reached following annual review of a support plan. Even
though section
393.0651(1) mandates that the Agency “shall develop and specify
by rule the core components of support plans,” the Agency has not pointed to any
rule in its brief to this Court or the Eleventh Circuit that requires consideration of
whether the elements required for involuntary admission are still satisfied during a
client’s annual support plan review. See J.R. II,
736 F.3d at 971.
Nothing within the text of section
393.0651 can be construed to include
consideration of the elements that must be established in order for a person to be
involuntarily committed under section
393.11(8)(b). Nor can section
393.0651 be
- 14 -
construed to include consideration of whether a client is a danger to himself or
others to satisfy the third element for involuntary admission in section
393.11(8)(b)3. All clients of the Agency—both voluntarily and involuntarily
admitted clients—receive annual support plan review. Nothing in section
393.0651 indicates that support plan review for involuntarily admitted clients
differs in any way from support plan review for voluntarily admitted clients.
The Agency’s reliance on section
393.0651’s requirement that each support
plan “must include the most appropriate, least restrictive, and most cost-beneficial
environment for accomplishment of the objectives for client progress and a
specification of all services auth...
...“[p]lacement in a residential setting is the least restrictive and most appropriate
alternative to meet the person’s needs.” If the Legislature intended for support
plan review to require consideration of all of the elements for involuntary
admission, section 393.0651 would have expressly provided for it....
...d review of the appropriateness of
an involuntary admission order because it does not take into account section
393.11(8)(b)3, which requires finding that an individual would be a danger to
himself or others if he is allowed to remain at liberty. Section
393.0651 contains a
stated goal similar to the legislative purpose discussed above: “The ultimate goal
of each plan, whenever possible, shall be to enable the client to live a dignified life
in the least restrictive setting, be that in t...
...admission would require this Court to impermissibly rewrite the requirements of
support plan review adopted by the Legislature.
- 16 -
Accordingly, we answer the first certified question in the negative because
support plan review under section
393.0651 does not require the Agency to
consider the continued propriety of an involuntary admission order entered under
section
393.11.
Circuit Court Release from Involuntary Admission
We next answer the Eleventh Circuit’s second certified question in the
negative because the Agency is not required under either section
393.0651 or
section
393.11, Florida Statutes, to petition the circuit court for a person’s release
from an involuntary admission order in cases where the Agency determines that
the circumstances that led to the initial admission order have changed. Neither
section
393.0651 nor section
393.11 can be construed to impose an implicit
obligation on the Agency to petition the circuit court for a person’s release from an
involuntary admission order when the Agency determines that the circumstances
that l...
...required by statute, finding an implied obligation within section
393.11 that
requires the Agency to file a petition based on an involuntary admission order no
longer being appropriate would modify the express terms of an unambiguous
statute.
Similarly, section
393.0651 does not contain any provisions that can be
construed as requiring the Agency to file a petition with the circuit court for any
reason. Section
393.0651 requires the Agency to do multiple things, such as
consider specific factors during a support plan review, consider various residential
placement options in a specified order, establish measurable goals for a client’s
progress,...
...individual education plans, promulgate rules regarding the core components of
support plans, and annually provide a written report to a client or the client’s
parent, guardian, or client advocate regarding the client’s “habilitative and medical
progress.” Nowhere, though, in section 393.0651, is the Agency required—or
even advised—to petition the circuit court for any reason.
The only reference to any type of review procedure mentioned in section
393.0651 is that a client or the client’s parent, guardian, or client advocate may
- 19 -
seek administrative review of a support plan or the outcome of an annual support
plan review....
...However, a successful administrative challenge to a support plan
would presumably lead to a revised support plan rather than a petition being filed
by the Agency with the appropriate circuit court for the client’s release.
While neither section
393.0651 nor section
393.11 mentions who may
petition the circuit court for review of an involuntary admission order when a
client’s circumstances change, other provisions of Florida law specifically address
the periodic judicial review...
...Further, as discussed above regarding the first certified question, the Agency
is not required to even consider all of the elements required for involuntary
- 20 -
admission when conducting an annual support plan review under section
393.0651.
Because requiring the Agency to file a petition with the circuit court would impose
an obligation on the Agency to undertake a specific act not required by statute,
finding an implied obligation within section
393.0651 that requires the Agency to
petition the circuit court for the release from an involuntary admission order would
modify the express terms of an unambiguous statute. Accordingly, we answer the
second certified question in the negative because nothing in either section
393.0651 or section
393.11 can be construed to impose an implicit obligation on
the Agency to petition the circuit court for a person’s release from an involuntary
admission order when the Agency determines that the circumstances that le...
...The correctness of this determination flows ineluctably from
three indisputable points. The first two points are based on express provisions of
- 25 -
the statute. The third point is based on the meaning of “least restrictive” in the
context of the statute.
First, section 393.0651(7), Florida Statutes (2011), requires that the Agency
provide for an annual revision of each client’s individual support plan. There is no
suggestion that a revised individual support plan is not intended to determine the
provision of services by the Agency. Second, under section 393.0651, a crucial
focus of the individual support plan process is the identification of the least
restrictive environment for the provision of services to a client. Section 393.0651
leaves no doubt about the importance of identifying the least restrictive
environment for the provision of services:
Each plan must include the most appropriate, least restrictive, and
most cost-beneficial environment for accomplishment of the
objectives for client progress . . . . The ultimate goal of each plan,
whenever possible, shall be to enable the client to live a dignified life
in the least restrictive setting, be that in the home or in the
community.
§ 393.0651 (Emphasis added)....
...etitioning the court
for termination of the involuntary admission.
The “stated governmental purpose,” Bailey,
82 So. at 792, of the statute is
the provision of services in “the most appropriate, least restrictive” setting
possible, section
393.0651, Fla....
...obtain judicial termination when continued involuntary admission no longer
constitutes the “most appropriate, least restrictive” environment for the provision
of services are both essential to carrying out the unequivocal mandate of the
statute. § 393.0651, Fla....
...Recognizing
these aspects of the statutory scheme is simply acknowledging the plain import of
the statute. Failing to recognize them results from a cramped, unreasonable
reading of the statutory text.
The view that the legislative purpose set forth in section
393.0651 “does not
take into account section
393.11(8)(b)3, which requires finding that an individual
would be a danger to himself or others if he is allowed to remain at liberty[,]”
majority op....
...1980) (superseded by statute as recognized
by Van Tassel v. Coffman,
486 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 1986)). The various
provisions of chapter 393 therefore must be read harmoniously in light of the
whole chapter.
Finally, the duty of the Agency under section
393.0651 is in no way
circumscribed by the statutory provisions related to judicial review of involuntary
admissions when a client reaches the age of majority, see §
393.115, Fla. Stat.
(2011), or the provisions authorizing an involuntarily admitted person to petition
for release, see §
393.11(13), Fla. Stat. (2011). These specific provisions are in no
way inconsistent with the broad duty imposed by section
393.0651. The
implication that they limit the reach of the duty imposed by section
393.0651 is not
reasonable. That implication effectively rewrites the clearly established statutory
duty of the Agency under section
393.0651....
