T.S. v. State, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 1311 (Fla. 2026)

The Florida Court of Appeals, Second District, found the trial court erred when it decided to make an upward departure from the recommendation of the Department of Juvenile Justice’s recommendation and failed to explain why the departure was most appropriate for T.S.’s individual rehabilitative needs.

The court reasoned in part: “Simply listing ‘reasons’ that are totally unconnected to this analysis does not explain why one restrictiveness level is better suited for providing the juvenile offender with ‘the most appropriate dispositional services in the least restrictive available setting.’ ” Id. at 633 (quoting § 985.03(21), Fla. Stat. (2007)). “[R]egurgitating factors or information provided by, and contained within, the DJJ’s comprehensive assessment and [recommendation] does not establish or provide the statutorily required ‘reasons’ that explain why the court is ‘disregarding’ these documents and the DJJ’s corresponding disposition recommendation.” Id. In order to disregard the recommendation, the trial court must identify “significant information that the DJJ has overlooked, failed to sufficiently consider, or misconstrued with regard to the child’s programmatic, rehabilitative needs along with the risks that the unrehabilitated child poses to the public.” Id. at 634. “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 [recommendation].” Id.

. . .

While the trial court did explain that it found the DJJ recommendation lacking because the DJJ did not hear testimony at trial and because of T.S.’s parents’ lack of appreciation about the need for T.S.’s treatment, the trial court did not articulate its understanding of the respective characteristics of the opposing restrictiveness levels, including (but not limited to) the type of child each level was designed to serve, the divergent treatment programs and services available to the juvenile, or the lengths of stay associated with each level. Cf. E.A.R., 4 So. 3d at 638 (listing factors which trial courts must explain when deviating from DJJ recommendation). For example, while the trial court mentioned its concern about whether T.S. would have access to pornography if he was in the community, the trial court did not explain how a moderate-risk facility offered divergent treatments or services different from the other levels, nor did the trial court recognize the potential length of stay associated with each level (though it did explain how long T.S. might serve in the moderate-risk facility). The trial court also failed to explain why the moderate-risk facility was better to serve both T.S.’s rehabilitative needs in the least restrictive setting while also protecting the public from further acts of delinquency. The trial court’s findings were insufficient to meet the requirements set forth in E.A.R., and we reject the State’s arguments to the contrary.”