DEPT. OF H R SERVICES v. BENSON, 606 So.2d 1272 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1992)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. HON. SEYMOUR BENSON, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ETC., RESPONDENT.

No. 92-2246.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
October 30, 1992.

Petition for review from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

Page 1273

James A. Sawyer, Jr., Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Orlando, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ana Cristina Martinez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

DIAMANTIS, Judge.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) seeks a writ of certiorari[1] to review the order of the trial court which requires HRS, or its designated agency or professional in Seminole County, to do a home study in an adoption proceeding. The trial court held that because the licensed clinical social worker who had prepared the prior home study did not have an office in Seminole County where the prospective adoptive parents reside, Chapter 92-96, § 9, Laws of Florida, amending section 63.092(2) of the Florida Statutes (1991), required HRS or its designated agent with offices in Seminole County to prepare the home study.

Section 63.092(2), as amended, requires HRS to perform the preliminary home study only if there is no licensed child-placing agency or licensed professional in the county where the prospective adoptive parents reside. The statute is intended to ensure the availability of adoption services in sparsely populated counties. Because the respondent does not contend that there are no qualified agencies or professionals in Seminole County, section 63.092(2) does not apply. Therefore, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring HRS or its designated agent in Seminole County to perform a further home study.

The petition is granted and the writ issued quashing the trial court’s order.

PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

[1] HRS sought alternative relief in the form of either a writ of certiorari or a writ of prohibition. We conclude that certiorari review is appropriate.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2025-03 (Oct. 20, 2025)

State Attorney Staff Firearm Possession in Courtrooms Number: AGO 2025-03 Issued: October 20, 2025 Ed…

2 months ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2025-02 (Oct. 20, 2025)

Certain Professional Firearm Regulations after McDaniels Number: AGO 2025-02 Issued: October 20, 2025 The Honorable…

2 months ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2025-01 (June 11, 2025)

Moving the dates of Municipal Elections absent voter approval Number: AGO2025-01 Issued: June 11, 2025…

2 months ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2023-04 (10/30/2023)

Sunshine Law – Search and Selection Committees Number: AGO2023-04 Issued October 30, 2023 Rachel Kamoutsas…

1 year ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO2023-03 (10/02/2023)

Firearms - Definitions Number: AGO2023-03 Issued October 02, 2023 Representative Shane Abbott Florida House of…

1 year ago

Florida Attorney General Opinion No. AGO 2023-02 (07/21/2023)

Clerk’s sale of court-ordered debts to debt purchasers Number: AGO 2023-02 Issued July 21, 2023…

1 year ago