M.W. v. Davis

M.W. (plaintiff) was a 16-year-old boy who had been adjudicated dependent for neglect when he was six years old. M.W. was in the custody of the Florida Department of Children and Families (the department) (defendant) in various placements for 10 years. M.W. had also been evaluated and treated for mental-health issues. When M.W. was 15 years old, he was admitted to a hospital’s psychiatric unit for a month due to psychological and behavioral issues. The psychiatrist and the psychologist who examined M.W. disagreed about an appropriate placement, with one favoring a residential treatment facility and the other favoring a therapeutic foster home. After M.W.’s release from the hospital, he did not receive his psychotropic medications for 11 days, so M.W. requested to return to the psychiatric unit only for medication and stabilization. Unfortunately, M.W.’s time at the hospital was extended because there were no placements available to him when the hospital sought to discharge him. While M.W. was hospitalized, a clinical psychologist from a different hospital performed an independent examination of M.W. pursuant to a court order and recommended therapeutic foster care. Additionally, the psychiatrist who had initially recommended residential treatment performed another examination and changed his recommendation to therapeutic foster care. However, after M.W.’s time in the hospital stretched on for several weeks, one day M.W. displayed verbal and physical aggression toward another patient, which caused the psychiatrist to change his recommendation again. After M.W. was released, he was evaluated by a psychologist that the department had chosen, who recommended residential placement. By the time of the next status hearing in M.W.’s dependency case, both the department and M.W. sought an evidentiary hearing to resolve M.W.’s placement amid the conflicting recommendations. Although the judge acknowledged that an evidentiary hearing was necessary, the judge was not able to schedule the evidentiary hearing for six weeks. Nevertheless, the court committed M.W., over his objections, to the Lock Towns Adolescent Care Program (defendant), a secured treatment facility, until the evidentiary hearing could take place. M.W. filed a writ of habeas corpus, which the Fourth District Court of Appeal initially granted but reversed on rehearing, finding that the trial court had not erred in determining that the residential placement was in M.W.’s best interests. The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question for the Florida Supreme Court’s review regarding procedures that must be followed if the department sought to involuntarily commit a dependent child for mental-health treatment at a residential facility.