Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...As we explain below, these twin goals of the juvenile justice system (rehabilitation and protection of the public) are not necessarily irreconcilable but are, in fact, complementary [5] and, further, mandate the type of "reasons" that the juvenile court must provide to justify a departure disposition under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...at may be present in the materials previously provided and already considered by the DJJ. Such a rule of law would thwart legislative intent, invite judicial capriciousness, and promote the inconsistent application and development of legal doctrine. Section 985.433(7)(b) does provide the juvenile court a measure of discretion to depart from the DJJ's recommended disposition when the DJJ has overlooked, failed to sufficiently consider, or misconstrued a significant characteristic of the child's p...

...oses to the public; however, it does not grant the juvenile court a license to promote procedural arbitrariness whenever the court simply disagrees with the DJJ. Any other approach would further ignore the Legislature's command in the last clause of section 985.433(7)(b) to provide meaningful appellate review of such departure dispositions....

...s 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....

...e 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....

...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....

...h-risk residential commitment followed by post-commitment probation. E.A.R. timely filed a notice of appeal. D. The Fourth District's Opinion and Certification of Conflict On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal framed the issue as: [W]hether section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), requires a trial court to specifically identify the "characteristics of the restrictiveness level imposed vis-à-vis the needs of the juvenile," when the trial court sentences a juvenile to a different restrictiveness level than that recommended by the [DJJ]. E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610, 610-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (footnote omitted). The district court held that section 985.433(7)(b), and its predecessor (section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2005)), do not expressly impose such a requirement, and further stated that this requirement had developed from a dissent in J.L.O....

...while also protecting the public from further acts of delinquency. § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also § 985.01-.02, Fla. Stat. (2007). Conversely, in the decision below, the Fourth District focused exclusively upon one statutory provision, section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), without addressing any related provisions that further reveal the Legislature's intent and address the broader standards that should control juvenile dispositions....

...Any party may appeal the court's findings resulting in a modified level of restrictiveness pursuant to this subparagraph. Ch. 90-208, § 5, at 1129, Laws of Fla. (emphasis supplied); § 39.052(3)(e)1.-3., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990) (emphasis supplied). Section 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2007), which governs disposition hearings in delinquency cases, contains very similar language but does not require that the juvenile court state its departure reasons in writing; instead, these reasons must simply be presented on the record....

...at a hearing that meets the constitutional standards of fundamental fairness and due process. Ch. 90-208, § 1, at 1087, Laws of Fla. (emphasis supplied) (strike-through text omitted); § 39.001(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990) (emphasis supplied). C. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), Must Be Interpreted in Light of the Juvenile Court's Overarching Duty to Ensure that the Child Receive the "Most Appropriate Dispositional Services in the Least Restrictive Available Setting" The enactm...

...a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.... d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible.... Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 974 (10th ed.1996). Based on section 39.052(3)(e)3., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), and section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), we know that the court's departure "reasons" may not be alleged, but rather must be real and supported by "a preponderance of the evidence." Moreover, based upon the applicable statutes, we know that an...

...tiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender with "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b) Fla....

...hild in the least restrictive available setting consistent with public safety while paying due regard to the child's rehabilitative needs and treatment plan) completely undermines the Legislature's carefully crafted statutory scheme. As indicated in section 985.433(7)(b), these "reasons" must " establish [ [30] ] by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding [ [31] ] the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ]." (Emphasis supplied.) Accor...

...that the unrehabilitated child poses to the public. In large part, this is why the juvenile court is permitted to consider live testimony and other evidentiary items not included within the DJJ's comprehensive assessment and PDR. See §§ 985.43(2), 985.433(3), Fla....

...ess and explain why departure is necessary to provide the juvenile offender with "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also §§ 985.01-.02, 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...aim that its prior articulation of the rule was dicta. See K.S. v. State, 835 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 610-11; A.T., 983 So.2d at 679. Since that step back, the Fourth District has maintained that the text of section 985.433(7)(b), and its predecessors, does not require the juvenile court to "reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-à-vis the needs of the child." See, e.g., E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 611-13....

...The Fourth District also has not articulated an alternative, statutorily based substantive standard to separate sufficient from insufficient departure reasons, which would thereby fulfill the Legislature's stated intent that the appellate courts of this state provide meaningful review of departure dispositions. See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...o require a basis for meaningful appellate review, and, likewise, fails to further the Legislature's statutory objectives, which include the underlying requirements for a sound determination at a disposition hearing. See §§ 985.01-.02, 985.03(21), 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...strictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b) Fla....

...ly undermines the Legislature's carefully crafted statutory scheme. These "reasons" must "establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ]." § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...viding the juvenile offender the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting. Accordingly, read in pari materia, the Legislature's statutory scheme discloses the following substantive measure of compliance with section 985.433(7)(b): (1) whether the juvenile *639 court has employed the proper legal standard (as outlined above) in providing its on-the-record departure reasons; and, if so, (2) whether its stated reasons are supported by a preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence contained within the record....

...CANADY, J., dissents with an opinion, in which WELLS and POLSTON, JJ., concur. CANADY, J., dissenting. Because I conclude that the majority has adopted a standard of review with respect to dispositions in delinquency cases that is unwarranted by the governing statute, I dissent. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes, unequivocally grants trial courts the discretion to "order placement" of a delinquent child "at a different restrictiveness level" than the level recommended by the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). The exercise of such discretion under section 985.433(7)(b) is subject only to the requirement that the trial court "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...

...the department." The question presented by this case is what standard of review should be used in determining whether to affirm or reverse a trial court's decision to disregard the restrictiveness level recommended by the DJJ. Given the language of section 985.433(7)(b), the statutory context, and principles of sound judicial administration, I conclude that an abuse-of-discretion standard is the appropriate standard of review....

...rther rehabilitative goals. But these broad purposes of the juvenile justice system do not justify the majority's imposition of a standard of review that effectively divests trial courts of the discretion given to them by the Legislature pursuant to section 985.433(7)(b)....

...The reality is that disposition decisions involve weighing a wide array of circumstances which are relevant to determining "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat.; see also § 985.433(6) (setting forth criteria to be evaluated in predisposition reports). It is evident from the text of section 985.433(7)(b) that the Legislature has recognized that a large measure of discretion is appropriately afforded to juvenile court judges as they make disposition determinations....

...1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (the State must establish the juvenile offender's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 531-40, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (double-jeopardy principles apply during juvenile proceedings). [11] Section 985.433(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), provides: The juvenile probation officer shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child....

...[18] A trade-name antidepressant. [19] A trade-name antipsychotic. [20] Such external concerns, which have nothing to do with the needs, well-being, and risks of the juvenile offender, are improper considerations during a disposition hearing. See §§ 985.03(21), 985.433, Fla....

...State, 835 So.2d 350, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); C.T. v. State, 819 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), review dismissed, 848 So.2d 305 (Fla.2003)). Juvenile courts must be aware that: (1) a finding of criminal street gang membership "shall be given great weight, " section 985.433(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) (emphasis supplied), in determining the most appropriate disposition for the juvenile (which means that, in the context of a juvenile departure disposition, an erroneous finding of membership in a crimin...

...t must prove, through proper evidence, that the juvenile offender satisfied " two or more " of the criteria presented in section 847.03(2), Florida Statutes (2007) (emphasis supplied), " at the time " that he or she committed the underlying offense, section 985.433(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) (emphasis supplied); and (5) there is a meaningful statutory distinction between a "criminal street gang member" under section 847.03(2), Florida Statutes (2007), and a "criminal street gang associate" under section 874.03(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) (i.e., section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes (2007) — the statute addressing juvenile disposition hearings — simply does not address "criminal street gang associates")....

...[27] Unfortunately, in this case, the title provides very little insight regarding what may constitute a sufficient departure "reason" because it merely reiterates the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard present in section 39.052(3)(e)3., Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), and section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...[32] In addition to examining the entire statutory scheme (which is required given that the Legislature provided a mutually reinforcing, comprehensive legal framework and explicitly specified that the relevant statutes are remedial in nature), we must also construe each material portion of the statutory language present in section 985.433(7)(b)....

...Specifically, to permissibly depart from a DJJ-recommended disposition, the statute mandates that the circuit court provide "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." § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless."). [33] § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007); formerly § 985.03(22), Fla. Stat. (2005); formerly § 39.01(28), Fla. Stat. (1995); formerly § 39.01(21), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990). [34] § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...at may be present in the materials previously provided and already considered by the DJJ. Such a rule of law would thwart legislative intent, invite judicial capriciousness, and promote the inconsistent application and development of legal doctrine. Section 985.433(7)(b) does provide the juvenile court a measure of discretion to depart from the DJJ’s recommended disposition when the DJJ has overlooked, failed to sufficiently consider, or misconstrued a significant characteristic of the child�...

...es to the public; however, it does not grant the juvenile court a license to promote procedural arbitrariness whenever the court simply disagrees with the DJJ. Any other approach would further ignore the Legislature’s command in the last clause of section 985.433(7)(b) to provide meaningful appellate review of such departure dispositions....

...s 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....

...f 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....

...risk residential commitment followed by post-commitment probation. E.A.R. timely filed a notice of appeal. D. The Fourth District’s Opinion and Certification of Conflict On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal framed the issue as: [Wjhether section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), requires a trial court to specifically identify the “characteristics of the restrictiveness level imposed visa-vis the needs of the juvenile,” when the trial court sentences a juvenile to a different restrictiveness level than that recommended by the [DJJ]. E.A.R. v. State, 975 So.2d 610, 610-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (footnote omitted). The district court held that section 985.433(7)(b), and its predecessor (section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2005)), do not expressly impose such a requirement, and further stated that this requirement had developed from a dissent in J.L.O....

...while also protecting the public from further acts of delinquency. § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also § 985.01-.02, Fla. Stat. (2007). Conversely, in the decision below, the Fourth District focused exclusively upon one statutory provision, section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), without addressing any related provisions that further reveal the Legislature’s intent and address the broader standards that should control juvenile dispositions....

...Any party may appeal the court’s findings resulting in a modified level of restrictiveness pursuant to this subparagraph. Ch. 90-208, § 5, at 1129, Laws of Fla. (emphasis supplied); § 39.052(8)(e)l.-3., Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990) (emphasis supplied). Section 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2007), which governs disposition hearings in delinquency cases, contains very similar language but does not require that the juvenile court state its departure reasons in writing; instead, these reasons must simply be presented on the record....

...at a hearing that meets the constitutional standards of fundamental fairness and due process. Ch. 90-208, § 1, at 1087, Laws of Fla. (emphasis supplied) (strike-through text omitted); § 39.001(2)(f), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990) (emphasis supplied). C. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), Must Be Interpreted in Light of the Juvenile Court’s Overarching Duty to Ensure that the Child Receive the “Most Appropriate Dispositional Services in the Least Restrictive Available Setting” The...

...principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact .... d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible.... Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 974 (10th ed.1996). Based on section 39.052(3)(e)3., Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), and section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), we know that the court’s departure “reasons” may not be alleged, but rather must be real and supported by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Moreover, based upon the applicable statutes, we kn...

...ess level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender with “the most appropriate dis-positional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b) Fla....

...in the least restrictive available setting consistent with public safety while paying due regard to the child’s rehabilitative needs and treatment plan) completely undermines the Legislature’s carefully crafted statutory scheme. As indicated in section 985.433(7)(b), these “reasons” must “establish[ 30 ] by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding[ 31 ] the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” (Emphasis supplied.) Acco...

...and explain why departure is necessary to provide the juvenile offender with “the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also §§ 985.01-02, 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...m that its prior articulation of the rule was dicta. See K.S. v. State, 835 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 610-11 ; A.T., 983 So.2d at 679 . Since that step back, the Fourth District has maintained that the text of section 985.433(7)(b), and its predecessors, does not require the juvenile court to “reference the characteristics of the restrictiveness level vis-á-vis the needs of the child.” See, e.g., E.A.R., 975 So.2d at 611-13 ....

...The Fourth District also has not articulated an alternative, statutorily based substantive standard to separate sufficient from insufficient departure reasons, which would thereby fulfill the Legislature’s stated intent that the appellate courts of this state provide meaningfid review of departure dispositions. See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...require a basis for meaningful appellate review, and, likewise, fails to further the Legislature’s statutory objectives, which include the underlying requirements for a sound determination at a disposition hearing. See §§ 985.01-02, 985.03(21), 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...tiveness level is better suited for providing' the juvenile offender “the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b) Fla....

...nes the Legislature’s carefully crafted statutory scheme. These “reasons” must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...ing the juvenile offender the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting. Accordingly, read in pari mate-ria, the Legislature’s statutory scheme discloses the following substantive measure of compliance with section 985.433(7)(b): (1) whether the juvenile *639 court has employed the proper legal standard (as outlined above) in providing its on-the-record departure reasons; and, if so, (2) whether its stated reasons are supported by a preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence contained within the record....

...1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (the State must establish the juvenile offender's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt”); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 531-40 , 95 S.Ct. 1779 , 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (double-jeopardy principles apply during juvenile proceedings). . Section 985.433(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), provides: The juvenile probation officer shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child .......

...A trade-name antidepressant. . A trade-name antipsychotic. . Such external concerns, which have nothing to do with the needs, well-being, and risks of the juvenile offender, are improper considerations during a disposition hearing. See §§ 985.03(21), 985.433, Fla....

...State, 835 So.2d 350, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); C.T. v. State, 819 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), review dismissed, 848 So.2d 305 (Fla.2003)). Juvenile courts must be aware that; (1) a finding of criminal street gang membership "shall be given great weight," section 985.433(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) (emphasis supplied), in determining the most appropriate disposition for the juvenile (which *628 means that, in the context of a juvenile departure disposition, an erroneous finding of membership in a c...

...st prove, through proper evidence, that the juvenile offender satisfied “two or more " of the criteria presented in section 847.03(2), Florida Statutes (2007) (emphasis supplied), “at the time ” that he or she committed the underlying offense, section 985.433(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) (emphasis supplied); and (5) there is a meaningful statutory distinction between a "criminal street gang member” under section 847.03(2), Florida Statutes (2007), and a “criminal street gang associate” under section 874.03(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2007) (i.e., section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes (2007) — the statute addressing juvenile disposition hearings — simply does not address “criminal street gang associates")....

...Unfortunately, in this case, the title provides very little insight regarding what may constitute a sufficient departure “reason" because it merely reiterates the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard present in section 39.052(3)(e)3., Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), and section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007)....

...In addition to examining the entire statutory scheme (which is required given that the Legislature provided a mutually reinforcing, comprehensive legal framework and explicitly specified that the relevant statutes are remedial in nature), we must also construe each material portion of the statutory language present in section 985.433(7)(b)....

...Specifically, to permissibly depart from a DJJ-recommended disposition, the statute mandates that the circuit court provide "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.” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...rts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.”). . § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007); formerly § 985.03(22), Fla. Stat. (2005); formerly § 39.01(28), Fla. Stat. (1995); formerly § 39.01(21), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990). . § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...strictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...ermines *1270 the Legislature's carefully crafted statutory scheme. These "reasons" must "establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ]." § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...Nevertheless, the State argues that any error was harmless. We agree with the juvenile because the trial court’s failure to give her and her father an opportunity to comment on the issue of disposition prior to its determination in accordance with section 985.433(4), Florida Statutes (2011), constituted fundamental error....

...Hence, we may review the disposition issue here for fundamental error because it involves a denial of due process. See Josephs, 86 So.3d at 1272 (holding we could review for fundamental error defendant’s unpreserved claim that the trial court relied on improper factors at sentencing). Section 985.433(4), Florida Statutes (2011), which governs dispositional hearings in delinquency proceedings, requires that before a court determines and announces a disposition, it shall: (a) State clearly, using common terminology, the purpose of t...

...involved in the case who are present at the hearing an opportunity to comment on the issue of disposition and any proposed rehabilitative plan. Parties to the case shall include the parents, legal custodians, or guardians of the child; the child’s counsel; the state attorney; and representatives of the department. *497 § 985.433(4), Fla....

...Therefore, because the juvenile did not personally waive her right to be present or heard during these discussions, the trial court’s failure to give the juvenile and her father an opportunity to comment on the issue of disposition prior to its determination constituted fundamental error. See § 985.433(4), Fla....

...strictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...ly undermines the Legislature's carefully crafted statutory scheme. These "reasons" must "establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ]." § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...the prior arrests or provide any reason why probation would be any more effective in the present case than it had been in the previous cases. The trial court rejected the recommendation for probation and placed appellant in a moderate-risk facility. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), governs the extent to which a trial court may deviate from the DJJ's recommendation in a PDR and provides in pertinent part: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...tiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender “the most appropriate disposi-tional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...nes the Legislature’s carefully-crafted statutory scheme. These “reasons” must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...ement in a low-risk residential program with post-commitment probation. He contends that the trial court erred by committing him to a different restrictiveness level than that recommended by the Department without sufficient reasons, in violation of section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes and the requirements set out in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 (Fla.2009). The adjudications are affirmed, but because the Department’s recommendations *929 of probation were not recommendations of a “restrictiveness level” most appropriate for the child, as contemplated by section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes, we reverse the commitments and remand for further proceedings....

...imony, the previous probation status, and the felony nature of two of the offenses. Written reasons to support the court’s determination were attached to the disposition orders as well. The two-part process for juvenile dispositions, as set out in section 985.433(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, was described in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614, 624 (Fla.2009). Step one is the “[t]he juvenile court’s first responsibility ... to determine whether the child should be adjudicated and committed.” E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 624 (citing § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat.). The court’s determination “shall include considerations of the recommendations of the department, which may include a predisposition report.” § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. The Department’s predisposition report must include the criteria listed in the statute (Section 985.433(6)(a)-(h), Fla. Stat.) but the court exercises its discretion in considering the criteria. As noted in E.A.R., section 985.433(7) requires that “[i]f 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.” E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 624 (citing § 985.433(7), Fla....

...The court must specify its reasons for adjudication and for commitment of the child to the Depart *930 ment. Id. The court’s disposition made under subsection (6), i.e., whether the child is adjudicated delinquent or not, and if adjudicated, whether the child is committed to the department or not, is not ap-pealable. § 985.433(6), Fla....

...The court included specific findings of the reasons for its decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the Department. As this court recently recognized, in J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DGA 2012), “E.A.R. does not apply to the initial determination made under section 985.433(6), which gives the trial court wide discretion in determining the suitability of commitment of the child to the Department.” The error in these disposition orders is not with the initial determinations of whether the child should be adjudicated delinquent or not and whether he should be committed to the Department or not. The error occurred when the trial court proceeded to step two of the disposition process, as described in section 985.433(7)(a)-(b), without sufficient input from the Department. Specifically, DJJ never provided the court with a recommendation from the juvenile probation officer of “the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child.” § 985.433(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Here, the predisposition report presented by DJJ loosely addressed the criteria in section 985.433(6)(a)-(h), Florida Statutes and recommended “probation.” No recommendation regarding commitment at any level was made. Accordingly, there was no identification of a “restrictiveness level” by DJJ, as contemplated by section 985.433(7)(a)-(b)....

...(lowest restrictiveness level is “minimal risk nonresidential,” applicable to committed youth who remain in the community). Because there was no restrictiveness level identified by the Department, the trial court’s orders that the child would be placed in a “low-risk” commitment did not violate section 985.433(7)(b) or the requirements for detailed explanation of any departure from the Department’s identified restrictiveness level, as set out in E.A.R., 4 So.3d 614 (2009)....

...See § 985.43(l)(a), Fla. Stat. Once the trial court receives a recommendation from the Department of the “most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child,” as required by section 985.433(7)(a), the court may proceed with step two of the disposition in these cases *931 in terms of the level of commitment of the child....

...A recommendation of “probation” by DJJ, •without any alternative analysis and recommendation in the event the court determines that the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department, is insufficient to allow the juvenile court to proceed with a final commitment disposition under section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the disposition orders on appeal are AFFIRMED as to the adjudications of delinquency, but the particulars of the commitments are REVERSED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion and section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes....

...Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elisabeth Porter, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. GROSS, J. We write to address a narrow issue — whether section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), [1] requires a trial court *611 to specifically identify the "characteristics of the restrictiveness level imposed vis-à-vis the needs of the juvenile," when the trial court sentences a juvenile to a d...

...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 a gang affiliation here. And for all of those reasons, the Court's going to place him in a Level 8 program. Section 985.433(7)(b) states: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified [in the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice] 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. The substance of section 985.433(7)(b) is identical to that of its predecessor, section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...vernable, a flight risk, and a danger to the public. See K.S., 835 So.2d at 351; C.T. v. State, 819 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We affirm the sentence and certify conflict with M.S. v. State . WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Previously, section 985.433(7)(b) was contained at section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...The court shall state for the record the reasons which 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. Section 985.23 was renumbered as 985.433 and amended by Laws 2006, c....

...See E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 631-32 (noting the Legislature's intent "for the [Department] and the juvenile courts to work in concert to provide juvenile offenders with dispositions that adequately and individually address their particular needs and risk levels"). This recognition is evident in section 985.433(6), which provides that the first determination to be made at a disposition hearing is "the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the department" and then sets forth criteria to be considered in connection with the Department's recommendation on this issue. One of the criteria is "[w]hether the protection of the community requires adjudication and commitment." § 985.433(6)(b), Fla....

...tiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender “the most appropriate disposi-tional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...nes the Legislature’s carefully crafted statutory scheme. These “reasons” must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...should be committed to the DJJ for residential treatment. The court asked DJJ to recommend a restrictiveness level treatment facility. Defense counsel objected to the deviation from the probation recommendation in the PDR, relying upon a rule announced in E.A.R. v. State, that, in applying section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), the court cannot deviate from the recommendation of DJJ as to the restrictiveness level of a commitment without explaining the reasons for the departure in terms of the characteristics of the imposed restrictiveness level vis-a-vis the rehabilitative needs of the child....

...My view is that treating this case or any other where the Department has recommended probation and then which the Court determines to do a commitment as being subject to those appellate rules is mistaken for a couple of reasons, two reasons in this case. First, the ... ordinary disposition statute, section 985.433 does not support that position....

...985.441.” Section 985.441, Florida Statutes (2010), provides in pertinent part: (1) The court that has jurisdiction of an adjudicated delinquent child may, ... (c)l. Following a delinquency adjudicatory hearing under s. 985.35 and a delinquency disposition hearing under s. 985.433 that results in a commitment determination, the court shall, on its own or upon request by the state or the department, determine whether the protection of the public requires that the child be placed in a program for serious or habitual juvenile offenders and whether the particular needs of the child would be best served by a program for serious or habitual juvenile offenders as provided in s. 985.47. The determination shall be made under ss. 985.47(1) and 985.433(7). [[Image here]] (d) Commit the child to the Department for placement in a program or facility for juvenile sexual offenders in accordance with s. 985.48 subject to a specific appropriation for such a program or facility. Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2010), governs disposition hearings in delinquency proceedings....

...ication and commitment of the child to the department.” The statute mandates that the court’s determination “shall include consideration of the recommendations of the department, which may include a predisposition report.” Subsection (6) and section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2010), set forth in substantial detail the required contents of the PDR and the criteria it must evaluate....

...iscretion of the court and not mandatory requirements of procedure. It is not the intent of the Legislature to provide for the appeal of the disposition made under this section. If the court determines to commit a child to the DJJ, subsection (7) of section 985.433 requires that: ......

...ost appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child.... The court shall consider the department’s recommendation in making its commitment decision.” Subsection (7)(b) of section 985.433 governs the restrictiveness level at which the court may commit a juvenile to the DJJ....

...veness level recommended by the department. Any party may appeal the court’s findings resulting in a modified level of restrictiveness under this paragraph. E.A.R. v. State At the heart of the E.A.R. decision was the construction to be placed upon section 985.433(7)(b)....

...However, the court recognized the differences in the two, pointing out that chapter 985 attempts to rehabilitate the child, while the primary purpose of criminal sentencing is to punish the offender. Id. The court explained the two-step process in sections 985.433(6) and (7) as follows: The juvenile court’s first responsibility is it 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 nonexclusive 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....

...The PDR in this case did not contain any analysis of the classification and placement process nor make a recommendation as to the classification risk for J.B.S. After reviewing the statutes and the express language of E.A.R., we agree with the trial court that E.A.R. does not apply to the initial determination made under section 985.433(6), which gives the trial court wide discretion in determining the suitability of commitment of the child to the Department. E.A.R. addressed the “precise issue” of the meaning to be accorded subsection (7)(b) of section 985.433....

...argues that our recent decision in M.H. v. State, 69 So.3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), compels reversal here. We do not agree. In M.H., it is apparent that the recommendation of probation was in connection with a determination of the restrictiveness level under section 985.433(7)(b)....

...y,” id., E.A.R. required the trial court to “engage in a well-reasoned and complete analysis of the PDR and the type of facility to which the trial court intends to send the child.” Id. at 328 . On reviewing the statutory framework of sections 985.433 and 985.475, we are not certain that section 985.433(7)(b) applies to proceedings under section 985.475....

...1 We *968 do not have to decide whether section 985.43S(7)(b) applies to a proceeding under section 985.475, however, because the trial court here did not deviate from the restrictiveness level recommended by DJJ. Here, the-juvenile court carefully structured the proceeding as a two-step process in compliance with sections 985.433(6) and (7)(b)....

...For example, section 985.441(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), applies to a commitment of a *968 juvenile to the DJJ for placement in a program or facility for serious or habitual juvenile offenders. Section 985.441(l)(c)l expressly requires a "delinquency disposition hearing under s. 985.433 that results in a commitment determination” as a condition to the court ordering placement in a program for serious or habitual juvenile offenders. By comparison, section 985.441(d), which gov-eras a commitment to the DJJ for placement in a program or facility for juvenile sexual offenders, makes no reference to a delinquency disposition hearing under section 985.433. Presumably, had the legislature intended to require a trial court to comply with section 985.433(7)(b) in a disposition proceeding under section 985.475, it would have so provided.

...strictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...dermines *680 the Legislature's carefully crafted statutory scheme. These "reasons" must "establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ]." § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...tice (“Department”) for placement in a non-secure residential program. He argues the trial court reversibly erred when it decided on a commitment restrictiveness level without first obtaining a recommendation from the Department. We agree. Under section 985.433(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), if a court determines that a child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department’s custody, the Department “shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatme...

...We agree that the State’s right to appeal in juvenile delinquency cases is “conferred and strictly governed by statute,” E.N. v. State, 484 So.2d 1210 , 1211 (Fla.1986); State v. S.S., 40 So.3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), and find that we have jurisdiction under two separate statutes: section 985.433(7)(b) and section 985.534(b)5., Florida Statutes (2009). Section 985.433(7)(b) states: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...We agree that the State's right to appeal in juvenile delinquency cases is "conferred and strictly governed by statute," E.N. v. State, 484 So.2d 1210, 1211 (Fla.1986); State v. S.S., 40 So.3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), and find that we have jurisdiction under two separate statutes: section 985.433(7)(b) and section 985.534(b)5., Florida Statutes (2009). Section 985.433(7)(b) states: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...Based on these precedents requiring that "[t]he focus of the disposition . . . be on the child's needs," X.W., 903 So.2d at 320, I concur in the decision to reverse the disposition. NOTES [1] The statutory provisions governing disposition hearings in delinquency cases are now found in section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2006).

...the prior arrests or provide any reason why probation would be any more effective in the present case than it had been in the previous cases. The trial court rejected the recommendation for probation and placed appellant in a moderate-risk facility. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), governs the extent to which a trial court may deviate from the DJJ’s recommendation in a PDR and provides in pertinent part: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...tiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender “the most appropriate disposi-tional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b), Fla....

...nes the Legislature’s carefully crafted statutory scheme. These “reasons” must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...strictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender "the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting." § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(e), 985.433(7)(a)(b), Fla....

...ly undermines the Legislature's carefully crafted statutory scheme. These "reasons" must "establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ]." § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...Rule 8.100(a) of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure provides that “[t]he child shall be present unless the court finds that the child’s mental or physical condition is such that a court appearance is not in the child’s best interests.” Section 985.433(4), Florida Statutes (2012), requires that a court, before it “determines and announces [a] disposition,” shall: (a) State clearly ......

...M.B., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s commitment of him to a Level 6 residential program despite the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation that he be placed on probation. The State cross-appeals the trial court’s order declaring sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional....

...We are unable to address the first issue because M.B. failed to preserve the issue in accordance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135. I.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). As for the cross-appeal, the trial court held sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b) unconstitutional based on the separation of powers doctrine. The trial court reached this conclusion based on the premise that the statute places sentencing discretion solely within the province of the Department of Juvenile Justice. 1 We disagree and reverse. See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...rties. As we will explain, the problem with the court’s commitment order was not that it disregarded the probation recommendation but, rather, that it prescribed a restrictiveness level without first obtaining a recommendation from the Department. Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2011), *3 governs the disposition hearing 1 when a court has found that a juvenile offender committed a delinquent act; section 985.441 governs commitment. The disposition statute requires a two-step process. In the first step, the court must decide whether to adjudicate and commit the child to the custody of DJJ or instead to withhold adjudication and place the child on probation. § 985.433(6) (“The first determination to be made by the court is a determination of the suitability or nonsuit-ability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the department.”). DJJ provides a recommendation that the court must consider, and the statute provides criteria to guide DJJ’s recommendation. § 985.433(6)(a)-(h). But “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that the criteria set forth in this subsection are general guidelines to be followed at the discretion of the court and not mandatory requirements of procedure.” § 985.433(6)....

...A court’s determination that the child should be adjudicated and committed must be expressed, orally or in writing, and “shall include a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department.” § 985.433(7)....

...f the commitment. See § 985.03(45)(a)-(e) (defining five restrictiveness levels: minimum-risk nonresidential, low-risk residential, moderate-risk residential, high-risk residential, and maximum-risk residential). In this step, DJJ is required by subsection 985.433(7)(a) to recommend to the court a placement and treatment plan and specifically identify “the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child.” Under subsection (b), the court must commit the child at the level recommended by the Department unless it provides reasons, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, for disregarding the recommendation. § 985.433(7)(b)....

...ot treat them as such. Contrary to the State’s argument here, the juvenile court both committed D.G. to a juvenile sexual offender program and committed him to a high-risk restrictiveness level. In the absence of the DJJ recommendation mandated by section 985.433(7)(a), the latter was error....

..." ‘Disposition hearing' means a hearing in which the court determines the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting provided for under part VII, in delinquency cases.” § 985.03(21). . In dicta, the First District noted that it was "not certain that section 985.433(7)(b) applies to proceedings under section 985.475” regarding juvenile sexual offenders....

...J.B.S., 90 So.3d at 967 . The reason for the court’s uncertainty turned on the fact that, in the version of section 985.441(1) at issue there, the provision addressing serious or habitual ,, juvenile offenders expressly required a commitment determination under section 985.433, whereas the provision addressing juvenile sexual offenders did not....

...ifferent 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. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...sidential programs, unless the court deems such placement appropriate. § 985.01(l)(c)(d)(g) & (h), Florida Statutes (2015). To implement the values identified in section 985.01, the legislature has provided a roadmap for disposition hearings in section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2015), which places great weight on the DJJ recommendations in a predisposition report. In its report, the DJJ is required to “recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child if commitment is recommended.” § 985.433(7)(a). Any penalty imposed on the child is “designed to encourage responsible and acceptable behavior and to promote both the rehabilitation of the child and the protection of the community.” § 985.433(9). The report shall include a variety of considerations, such as the type and seriousness of the offense, public safety, sophistication and maturity of the child, criminal history, and the child’s rehabilitative needs. § 985.433(6)(a-h). If a court determines a child should be adjudicated and committed to the custody of the DJJ, that determination must be in writing or on the hearing record and include specific findings for the reasons the court chose commitment. § 985.433(7)....

...If the court deviates upward from the DJJ’s ■ recommended commitment level, it “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 [DJJ].” *10 § 985.433(7)(b); see also E.A.R....

...lth and well-being of all children under the state’s care,” The Department of Juvenile Justice shall prepare an updated predisposition report for the trial court’s use in developing a plan of probation, pursuant to sections 985.0301(5)(b)l and 985.433(7)(c) & (9), Florida Statutes (2016)....

...was, she found, a drug dealer, because he had a brother sentenced to life in prison, and because she found "it is absolutely amazing that [DJJ] came back low risk on a conspiracy charge." A judge's authority to deviate from DJJ's recommendation under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), is not unbridled; the judge must act in conformity with the statute....

...A subsequent delinquency petition was filed on May 23, 2006, alleging as a new law violation that D.L.T. had cocaine in his possession. [2] The State argued that DJJ's recommendation was a "slap in the face," given the additional offense of conspiracy to sell cocaine. [3] Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2006) provides: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...that the trial court abused its discretion by departing from the DJJ's recommendation without articulating sufficient reasons for departure. Accordingly, we reverse. It is well-established that a trial judge may disregard the DJJ's recommendations under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), but must state reasons for doing so that make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child....

2009). We agree and, consequently, reverse. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), delineates

...The PDR was then submitted at the disposition hearing, where the DJJ and Appellant asked the trial court to adopt the recommendation of probation. The trial court rejected the recommendation and placed Appellant in a moderate-risk residential program. Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), governs the extent to which a trial court may deviate from a sentencing recommendation of the DJJ....

...ictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender” the m,ost appropriate disposi-tional services in the least restrictive available setting. § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)-(3), 985.433(7)(a)-(b)[,] Fla....

...nes the Legislature’s carefully crafted statutory scheme. These “reasons” must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...ifferent 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. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...See E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 631-32 (noting the Legislature’s intent “for the [Department] and the juvenile courts to work in concert to provide juvenile offenders with dispositions that adequately and individually address their particular needs and risk levels”). This recognition is evident in section 985.433(6), which provides that the first determination to be made at a disposition hearing is “the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the department” and then sets forth criteria to be considered in connection with the Department’s recommendation on this issue. One of the criteria is “[w]hether the protection of the community requires adjudication and commitment.” § 985.433(6)(b), Fla....

...While the trial court may have relied on its experience and personal knowledge to determine that a nonsecure residential program was more suitable, its reasoning on the record was insufficient under the rigorous requirements of E.A.R. We are mindful of the seeming discrepancy between the text of section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and the requirements of E.A.R....

...The statute merely says that a trial 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.” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...While the trial court may have relied on its experience and personal knowledge to determine that a nonsecure residential program was more suitable, its reasoning on the record was insufficient under the rigorous requirements of E.Á.R. We are mindful of the seeming discrepancy between the text ' of section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and the requirements of E.A.R....

...idential program. He argues the trial court reversibly erred when it ordered a commitment placement without a restrictiveness level recommendation from the Department. Under the particular circumstances here, we conclude the court did not err. Under section 985.433(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), if a court determines that a child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department’s custody, the Department “shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatme...

...State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), before it determined that a moderate-risk placement was appropriate for Appellant. Id. We AFFIRM the adjudication of delinquency, but we REVERSE Appellant’s commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with B.K.A. and section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes....

...The trial court also erred in failing to enter a written order in compliance with section 985.441(2)(d), Florida Statutes. K.M.H. v. State, 91 So.3d 262, 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We AFFIRM the adjudication of delinquency, but we REVERSE Appellant’s commitment and remand for further proceedings consistent with B.K.A. and section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes....

...and the [E.A.R.] Supreme Court decision no further legal analysis is required because I am accepting the evaluation of the [DJJ]. . . . At this point the [c]ourt will commit him to a non-secure residential commitment level.” The court found under section 985.433(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and consistent with the alternative recommendation, that the juvenile’s needs 2 could be met in a non-secure residential commitment program....

...d (2) whether E.A.R. findings are required when a court imposes an alternative recommendation to commit the juvenile at the DJJ’s recommended restrictiveness level. We have not had the opportunity to address these issues in our prior opinions. Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2014), governs “[d]isposition hearings in delinquency cases.” § 985.433, Fla....

...Subsection (6) provides “[t]he first determination to be made by the court is a determination of the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the [DJJ]. This determination shall include consideration of the recommendations of the [DJJ], which may include a predisposition report.” Id. § 985.433(6). Subsection (7) then requires the determination to be in writing or on the hearing record and include specific findings for the reasons the court chose commitment. Id. § 985.433(7). In making a determination, “[t]he [DJJ] shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child if commitment is recommended.” Id. § 985.433(7)(a). The court shall commit the child to the [DJJ] at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a 3  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 [DJJ]. Id. § 985.433(7)(b). In E.A.R., our supreme court stated, “[t]he precise issue ....

...4 recommendation of probation. The First District held: After reviewing the statutes and the express language of E.A.R., we agree with the trial court that E.A.R. does not apply to the initial determination made under section 985.433(6), which gives the trial court wide discretion in determining the suitability of commitment of the child to the [DJJ]. E.A.R. addressed the “precise issue” of the meaning to be accorded subsection (7)(b) of section 985.433....

...nseling. Rejecting the Department’s recommendation, the trial court committed Appellant to a non-secure residential facility with mental-health treatment. Section 985.438, Florida Statutes (2016), governs disposition hearings in delinquency cases. Section 985.433(6) grants the trial court discretion regarding the “determination of the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment .of the child to the department.” The statutory scheme mandates the....

...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 restrictiveness level recommended by the department_ § 985.433(7)(a-b), Fla. Stat. (2016). ■ This court has previously held that the “initial determination made under section 985.433(6) ......

2 assessment and recommendation. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla. Stat.; E.A.R., 4 So. 3d at 635. Here

...Although the trial court is permitted wide latitude in making juvenile-offender commitment decisions, if it deviates from the commitment level recommended by the Department in a PDR, it must give reasons for disregarding the Department’s assessment and recommendation. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...M.B., a juvenile, appeals the trial court's commitment of him to a Level 6 residential program despite the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommendation that he be placed on probation. The State cross-appeals the trial court's order declaring sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional....

...We are unable to address the first issue because M.B. failed to preserve the issue in accordance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135. I.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). As for the cross-appeal, the trial court held sections 985.433(7)(a) and (b) unconstitutional based on the separation of powers doctrine. The trial court reached this conclusion based on the premise that the statute places sentencing discretion solely within the province of the Department of Juvenile Justice. [1] We disagree and reverse. See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

GROSS, J. We write to address a narrow issue—whether section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), 1 requires a trial court *611 to specifically identify the “characteristics of the restrictiveness level imposed vis-a-vis the needs of the juvenile,” when the trial court sentences a juvenile to a...

...atements 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 a gang affiliation here. And for all of those reasons, the Court’s going to place him in a Level 8 program. Section 985.433(7)(b) states: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified [in the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice] or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...was ungovernable, a flight risk, and a danger to the public. See K.S., 835 So.2d at 351 ; C.T. v. State, 819 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We affirm the sentence and certify conflict with M.S. v. State. WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur. . Previously, section 985.433(7)(b) was contained at section 985.23(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...The court shall state for the record the reasons which establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the *611 child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the department. Section 985.23 was renumbered as 985.433 and amended by Laws 2006, c....

...The court gave no reason for its deviation from the DJJ’s recommendation at the hearing, but stated in its written order that “[Appellant] has a history of not obeying the law or authority figures. This requires a more restrictive disposition for protecting the public.” Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), permits the court to deviate from the DJJ’s recommendation, stating, 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 gave no reason for its deviation from the DJJ's recommendation at the hearing, but stated in its written order that "[Appellant] has a history of not obeying the law or authority figures. This requires a more restrictive disposition for protecting the public." Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), permits the court to deviate from the DJJ's recommendation, stating, The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...for an abuse of discretion. However, the question of whether the court has used the proper legal standard to provide its departure reasons is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” C.C. v. State, 276 So. 3d 14, 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citation omitted). Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2018), delineates the procedural requirements a trial court’s disposition decision must meet after a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent....

...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 [DJJ]. 2 § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

.... . Once the trial court receives a recommendation from the [DJJ] of the “most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child,” as required by section 985.433(7)(a), the court may proceed with step two of the disposition in these cases in terms of the level of commitment of the child....

...alternative analysis and recommendation in the event the court determines that the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Department, is insufficient to allow the juvenile court to proceed with a final commitment disposition under section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes. Id....

...ifferent 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. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...Based on this testimony, the court concluded that "I don't think the Department has adequately considered everything in this case so I'm ordering a staffing." The DJJ conducted another review of J.D.P.'s case consistent with the factors provided in section 985.433(6), Florida Statutes (2016)....

..."The disposition statute requires a two-step process. In the first step, the court must decide whether to adjudicate and commit the child to the custody of DJJ or instead to withhold adjudication and place the child on probation." D.G. v. State , 170 So.3d 1 , 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing § 985.433(6) )....

..., 4 So.3d at 624 . Neither judge in this case determined on the record that J.D.P. should be adjudicated and committed, nor did they make "a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department." Id. (quoting § 985.433(7) )....

...Based on this testimony, the court concluded that "I don't think the Department has adequately considered everything in this case so I'm ordering a staffing." The DJJ conducted another review of J.D.P.'s case consistent with the factors provided in section 985.433(6), Florida Statutes (2016)....

..."The disposition statute requires a two-step process. In the first step, the court must decide whether to adjudicate and commit the child to the custody of DJJ or instead to withhold adjudication and place the child on probation." D.G. v. State , 170 So.3d 1 , 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing § 985.433(6) )....

..., 4 So.3d at 624 . Neither judge in this case determined on the record that J.D.P. should be adjudicated and committed, nor did they make "a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department." Id. (quoting § 985.433(7) )....

...Based on this testimony, the court concluded that "I don't think the Department has adequately considered everything in this case so I'm ordering a staffing." The DJJ conducted another review of J.D.P.'s case consistent with the factors provided in section 985.433(6), Florida Statutes (2016)....

..."The disposition statute requires a two-step process. In the first step, the court must decide whether to adjudicate and commit the child to the custody of DJJ or instead to withhold adjudication and place the child on probation." D.G. v. State, 170 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing § 985.433(6))....

...3d at 624. Neither judge in this case determined on the record that J.D.P. should be adjudicated and committed, nor did they make "a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department." Id. (quoting § 985.433(7)). Accordingly, we must reverse. Furthermore, the juvenile court erred when it sentenced J.D.P....

...and (2) whether the court’s departure reasons are supported by the evidence.” Id. (citing E.A.R., 4 So. 3d at 638-39). Whether the trial court employed the proper legal standard is reviewed de novo. Id. 3  Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2016), governs the disposition hearing in delinquency proceedings. Under subsection (6), the first determination to be made is “the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the [D]epartment.” § 985.433(6), Fla....

...commit a child to the Department and that the rigorous analysis in E.A.R. does not apply to this initial determination. J.B.S. v. State, 90 So. 3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding the E.A.R. analysis did not apply to the trial court’s initial determination made under section 985.433(6) to reject the Department’s recommendation of probation in favor of commitment); B.K.A....

...nile Justice (DJJ) made in its predisposition report to restore P.Y. to probation. In a disposition proceeding, the court determines whether a culpable juvenile should be committed to the custody of the DJJ and, if so, at what restrictiveness level. § 985.433(6), Fla....

...If the court determines that commitment is warranted, “such determination shall be in writing or on the record of the hearing,” and “shall include a specific finding of the reasons for the decision to adjudicate and to commit the child to the department.” § 985.433(7), Fla. Stat. (2007). Although section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes (2007), confers discretion to depart from the DJJ’s recommendation, the court may not deviate merely because *1169 it disagrees with the recommendation....

...oper legal standard as set forth in E.A.R. and (2) whether the court’s departure reasons are supported by the evidence.” Id. (citing E.A.R., 4 So.3d at 638-39 ). Whether the trial court employed the proper legal standard is reviewed de novo. Id. Section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2016), governs the disposition hearing in delinquency proceedings. Under subsection (6), the first determination to be made is “the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the [Department.” § 985.433(6), Fla....

...ent and that the rigorous analysis in E.A.R. does not apply to this initial determination. J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) *537 (holding the E.A.R. analysis did not apply to the trial court’s initial determination made under section 985.433(6) to reject the Department’s recommendation of probation in favor of commitment); B.K.A....

...L.S., a child, appeals an adjudication of delinquency and disposition. She argues that the trial court fundamentally erred by failing to have a statutorily required discussion with her prior to determining and announcing the disposition. We disagree, but write to address section 985.433(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2021), the statutory requirement on which L.S....

...was “decompensating” and committed her to a non-secure residential facility. On appeal, L.S. argues for the first time that the trial court erred by failing to engage in a discussion with her about her feelings before determining and announcing the court’s disposition, as required by section 985.433(4)(c). Because L.S.’s argument is not preserved for review, our review is limited to fundamental error....

...rror must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process.” Cromartie v. State, 70 So. 3d 559, 563 (Fla. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)). Section 985.433, “Disposition hearings in delinquency cases,” provides in relevant part: 2  When a child has been found to have committed a delinquent act, the following procedures shall be appl...

...to be imposed, it shall: .... (c) Discuss with the child his or her feelings about the offense committed, the harm caused to the victim or others, and what penalty he or she should be required to pay for such transgression. § 985.433(4)(c), Fla....

...“her feelings” about the underlying charges of battery, the harm caused to her mother or others, or what penalty she should have to pay for those acts at the three post-VOP disposition hearings. However, two overarching questions remain: (1) whether section 985.433(4)(c) applies to post-VOP disposition hearings, and if so, (2) whether the failure to comply with the statute is fundamental error. We answer both questions in the negative. First, section 985.433(4)(c) did not apply to the three disposition hearings in question....

...es covering the same general field.” Wakulla Cnty. v. Davis, 395 So. 2d 540, 542 (Fla. 1981) (alteration in original) (quoting Howarth v. City of De Land, 158 So. 294, 298 (1934)). By its title, “Disposition hearings in delinquency cases,” section 985.433 would seem to apply to the disposition hearings at issue....

...(2021) (“‘Disposition hearing’ means a hearing in which the court determines the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting provided for under part VII, in delinquency cases.”). Nevertheless, looking to its substantive language and defined terms, subsection 985.433(4)(c) does not apply to a post-VOP disposition in which no new law violation is alleged....

....” § 985.03(9), Fla. Stat. (2021). “‘Violation of law’ or ‘delinquent act’ means a violation of any law of this state, the United States, or any other state which is a misdemeanor or a felony . . . .” § 985.03(53), Fla. Stat. (2021). Pursuant to section 985.433(4)(c)’s plain language, “[w]hen a child has been found to have committed a delinquent act,” and “[b]efore the court determines and announces the disposition to be imposed, it shall … [d]iscuss with the child his or her feelings about the offense committed ….” § 985.433(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2021). Because the trial court is required to have the discussion under section 985.433(4)(c) “when” the child has been found to have committed the delinquent act, the statute’s plain language does not require such a discussion at a later disposition hearing at which the child has not been found to have committed a delinquent act....

...violating her probation by failing to successfully complete a program, which does not qualify as a “delinquent act” because it was not a violation of the law. Consequently, the trial court was not required to have the discussion contemplated under section 985.433(4)(c) at the post-VOP hearings in question. Second, even assuming arguendo that the statute applied, any error is not fundamental....

...r, arguing the trial court erred in retroactively applying a 2024 statutory amendment. The state “agrees Appellant should have only been subjected to the law in effect at the time of his crime for his sentence—the 2023 version of Florida Statute section 985.433 (and any other applicable 2023 statutes).” We find that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence pursuant to a 2024 statutory amendment that occurred after the commission of appellant’s crime. As such, we reverse. Following a plea, the trial court adjudicated appellant delinquent and sentenced him on December 27, 2023, to a non-secure residential commitment followed by post-commitment juvenile probation pursuant to section 985.433(7)(c), Florida Statutes (2023). However, subsequently, at a July 16, 2024, pre-release hearing, the trial court found that a statutory amendment to section 985.433(7)(d) that became effective on July 1, 2024, applied....

...“Because a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, this court’s standard of review is de novo.” Levandoski v. State, 217 So. 3d 215, 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). We agree with the state and find the trial court erred in applying the 2024 amended version of section 985.433 because appellant’s crime involving a firearm occurred in 2023....

....” § 775.022(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2023). “[U]nder the rules of statutory construction, there must be a clear expression of intended retrospective application.” Orme v. State, 25 So. 3d 536, 547 (Fla. 2009). Nothing in the 2024 version of section 985.433 indicates that the legislature wanted this amendment to apply retrospectively. Additionally, the trial court erred by changing the condition of probation that appellant was already sentenced to in 2023....

...and remand with instructions to vacate the conditional release portion of appellant’s disposition, including the electronic monitor requirement, and for further proceedings on appellant’s post-commitment disposition in accordance with the 2023 version of section 985.433. 2  Reversed and remanded with instructions. MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin...

...The juvenile court’s departure reasons “must ‘establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...ntion is necessary for logistical reasons, such as keeping the child and public safe while awaiting space in a selected program. Section 985.26(3) does not, however, provide a disposition alternative. Instead, the trial court should have relied upon section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2012), which sets forth disposition alternatives for juvenile offenders, but, notably, does not include ordering that the child be held in secure detention....

...was, she found, a drug dealer, because he had a brother sentenced to life in prison, and because she found “it is absolutely amazing that [DJJ] came back low risk on a conspiracy charge.” A judge’s authority to deviate from DJJ’s recommendation under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), is not unbridled; the judge must act in conformity with the statute....

...A subsequent delinquency petition was filed on May 23, 2006, alleging as a new law violation that D.L.T. had cocaine in his possession. . The State argued that DJJ's recommendation was a “slap in the face," given the additional offense of conspiracy to sell cocaine. . Section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2006) provides: The court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...a matter of law or are unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. A trial court’s decision to disregard the DJJ’s recommendation of the restrictiveness level must be supported by stated valid reasons and a preponderance of the evidence. See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...that the trial court abused its discretion by departing from the DJJ’s recommendation without articulating sufficient reasons for departure. Accordingly, we reverse. It is well-established that a trial judge may disregard the DJJ’s recommendations under section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), but must state reasons for doing so that make reference to the characteristics of the restrictiveness level and the needs of the child....

hearings in delinquency cases are now found in section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2006).

...Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.  Affirmed. L.S. v. State, 346 So. 3d 42, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting § 985.433(4)(c), Fla....

...recommended, a predisposition report is not optional. Further, the DJJ “shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child if commitment is recommended.” § 985.433(7)(a), Fla....

...Before making a final disposition, the trial court “shall consider the child’s entire assessment and predisposition report and shall 8 review the records of earlier judicial proceedings.” § 985.43(2); see also § 985.433(7)(a). Further, the trial court “shall commit the child to the [DJJ] at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level.” § 985.433(7)(b)....

...However, if the trial court disregards the restrictiveness level recommended by the DJJ, the trial 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 [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b). The record before this Court reflects that the trial court circumvented this procedure....

...was prepared by the DJJ. Thereafter, the State disagreed with the recommendation and sought commitment. The trial court ordered F.L.P. committed to a non-secure facility, and F.L.P. appealed. On appeal, the Fourth District provided that “[s]ection 985.433, Florida Statutes (2018), delineates the procedural requirements a trial court’s disposition decision must meet after a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent.” The court then quotes section 985.433(7)(b), which provides: The court shall commit the child to the [DJJ] at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level....

...Although section 985.439(4) only states that a “new disposition order” is required after a probation violation, but does not mention a new predisposition report, section 985.439(4) should not be read in isolation, but in pari materia with sections 985.43 and 985.433, which sets forth the procedures for the entry of a disposition order....

...for whom a residential commitment disposition is anticipated or recommended by an officer of the court or by the [DJJ],” and section 985.44(2) provides that the trial court is required to review the predisposition report before making a final disposition. Further, section 985.433 provides that the DJJ “shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child if commitment is recommended.” § 985.433(7)(a), Fla....

...3. The Child must not use controlled substances. 4. The Child must not possess any firearms. Other conditions: …… The child was committed for an offense or attempted offense involving a firearm and under section 985.433(7)(d), Florida Statutes, the child must be placed on conditional release for a period of 1 year following release from a commitment program....

...involves the use or possession of a firearm other than a violation of section 790.22(3), Florida Statutes, and the child is not committed by this order to a residential commitment program of the Department of Juvenile Justice. Therefore, under section 790.22(9)985.433(8), Florida Statutes, the child is ordered to serve: 30 days in secure detention with .............

...When a trial court adjudicates a child as having committed a delinquent act and determines that the child should be committed to DJJ, “[t]he court shall commit the child to the department at the restrictiveness level identified or may order placement at a different restrictiveness level.” See § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...recommends probation versus commitment in the PDR [predisposition report], the PDR must also include the restrictiveness level recommendation that would meet the child’s needs if the Court . . . determines the child is to be committed.” We find this order contravenes section 985.433, Florida Statutes, by combining the two-step process set forth in subsections 985.433(6) and (7). See B.K.A. v. State, 122 So. 3d 928, 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (finding there is a “two-part process for juvenile dispositions, as set out in section 985.433(6) and (7), Florida Statutes”); J.B.S. v. State, 90 So. 3d 961, 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding the court properly “structured the proceeding as a two-step process in compliance with sections 985.433(6) and (7)(b)”)....

...Accordingly, we AFFIRM the portion of the disposition order adjudicating the appellant delinquent, but we REVERSE the non-secure residential commitment and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinions in B.K.A. and A.L.M., as well as section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes....

...1st DCA 2015). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the portion of the disposition order adjudicating the appellant delinquent, but we REVERSE the non-secure residential commitment and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinions in B.K.A. and A.L.M., as well as section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes. ROBERTS, MAKAR and JAY, JJ., CONCUR. 2 

...ad made after the disposition hearing. When a juvenile court concludes that a child has committed a crime, it begins a two-pronged disposition process. First, it determines whether the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the DJJ. § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2013). That statute lists criteria for assessing the advisability of committing the child, and the court must make specific findings.outlining factors that support an adjudication and commitment. § 985.433(7)....

...ermine the appropriate level of commitment. If a court disagrees with the DJJ’s recommendation in this regard, it must state on the record reasons that establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, why a different commitment level is appropriate. § 985.433(7)(b)....

...disposition hearing. When a juvenile court concludes that a child has committed a crime, it begins a two-pronged disposition process. First, it determines whether the child should be adjudicated delinquent and committed to the DJJ. § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2013). That statute lists criteria for assessing the advisability of committing the child, and the court must make specific findings outlining factors that support an adjudication and commitment. § 985.433(7). -2-  Here, the circuit court's stated reasons were sufficient to support its decision to adjudicate R.R.R....

...court must determine the appropriate level of commitment. If a court disagrees with the DJJ's recommendation in this regard, it must state on the record reasons that establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, why a different commitment level is appropriate. § 985.433(7)(b)....

...ifferent 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. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...abuse of discretion. However, whether a juvenile court has employed the proper legal standard in providing its departure reasons is a question of law subject to de novo review.” D.R.R. v. State, 94 So. 3d 680, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citations omitted). Section 985.433, Florida Statutes, governs “[d]isposition hearings in delinquency cases.” § 985.433, Fla....

...Subsection (6) provides that “[t]he first determination to be made by the court is a determination of the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the [DJJ]. This determination shall include consideration of the recommendations of the [DJJ], which may include a [PDR].” § 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2019). Subsection (7) then requires the determination to be in writing or on the hearing record and include specific findings for the reasons the court chose commitment. § 985.433(7), Fla....

...(2019). In making a determination, “[t]he [DJJ] shall recommend to the court the most appropriate placement and treatment plan, specifically identifying the restrictiveness level most appropriate for the child if commitment is recommended.” § 985.433(7)(a), Fla....

...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 [DJJ]. § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...better suited for providing the juvenile offender with “the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting.” § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis supplied); see also §§ 985.03(44)(a)–(e), 985.433(7)(a)-(b) Fla. Stat....

...carefully crafted statutory scheme. These “reasons” must “establish by a preponderance of the evidence why the court is disregarding the assessment of the child and the restrictiveness level recommended by the [DJJ].” § 985.433(7)(b), Fla....

...recommended disposition for [the juvenile], which is that he be committed -- he’d be adjudicated guilty of the offense; that he be committed to a non-secure residential facility. The State argues the trial court was referring to section 985.433, Florida Statutes (2016), which provides that the trial court shall consider the DJJ’s recommendations when determining whether to commit a juvenile, which may include a PDR. The State claims the court is allowed 4 to view the juvenile’s criminal history “without limitation.” Section 985.433(6)(f) provides the trial court may evaluate “[t]he record and previous criminal history of the child, including without limitations” prior adjudications of delinquency, and prior commitments to institutions. The State argues Norvi...

...And, chapter 985 has sufficient safeguards to insure the juvenile’s rights are as protected as the need to fashion a disposition to rehabilitate the juvenile. As the State rightfully suggests, the DJJ is statutorily required to include the child’s criminal history within its PDR. § 985.433. In fact, section 985.433(6)(f)1....