M.R. v. Evolutions Treatment Center
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJune 9, 2020
Docket3D20-0780
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed June 9, 2020.
________________
No. 3D20-780
Lower Tribunal No. 20-2113
________________
In Re: M.R.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Evolutions Treatment Center,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.
Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third
Region of Florida, and Jacqueline Rae Brandt and Phillippa G. Hitchins, Assistant
Regional Counsels, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Before SALTER, LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
According to the amended emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
appendix filed here, M.R. is a 23-year-old presently subject to an involuntary
commitment at Evolutions Treatment Center (“Center”) under the Marchman Act,
section 397.301 et seq., Florida Statutes (2019). M.R.’s initial admission was
voluntary, on April 6, 2020. After the Center completed an initial psychiatric
evaluation of M.R. the following day, petitioning family members sought to convert
the admission to an involuntary commitment for M.R.’s further assessment and
stabilization at the Center in an emergency petition filed in the circuit court, pursuant
to section 397.6818 of the Marchman Act.
The emergency petition alleged that M.R. has been substance abuse impaired
and has had a co-occurring mental disorder for the past two years. On April 9, 2020,
the circuit court entered an ex parte order for involuntary assessment for substance
abuse, detoxification, and stabilization.
The involuntary assessment order required the Center to assess M.R. within
72 hours by a “qualified professional who shall file a report of findings and
recommendations” with the circuit court within seven days. Those time periods
began to run when M.R. was served with the involuntary assessment order.
On April 10, 2020, M.R.’s family members filed a sworn petition for
involuntary treatment services for M.R., for a period of up to 90 days. That petition
did not allege that the treatment assessment ordered by the trial court had been
2
completed. A notice of hearing to address the involuntary treatment petition was
filed on April 14, setting a hearing on the petition for April 20, 2020. An attorney
from the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel for this region was
appointed to represent the interests of M.R.
The case was heard by the trial court on April 23, 2020, via videoconferencing
due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The trial court heard the testimony of a petitioning
family member, the clinical director and a therapist from the Center, and M.R.
himself. Four days later, the trial court entered an order granting the petition and
directing M.R. to remain in the custody of the Center for up to ninety days of further
treatment. Regional Counsel’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and immediate
discharge from involuntary commitment, and an appendix, were filed here on May
20, 2020. An amended petition and appendix, filed two days later, designated the
Center as the appropriate respondent (rather than the State of Florida). These
documents were certified to have been served by email on the attorney for the
petitioning family members and on the Center.
We ordered a response to be filed on May 28, 2020, but one was not
forthcoming. The Clerk’s office contacted counsel for the petitioning family
members and the clinical director of the Center to inquire whether a response would
be filed and was advised that it would not. Accordingly, we grant the amended
petition for a writ of habeas corpus and direct the Center to discharge M.R. and to
3
release him from involuntary custody forthwith.1 We vacate the trial court’s order
of April 27, 2020, for involuntary treatment for substance services. This opinion
shall take effect immediately upon issuance.
Petition granted; order for involuntary treatment vacated.
1
This opinion does not, however, preclude M.R. and the Center from reaching
agreement for any voluntary continuation of M.R.’s treatment at the Center. We
express no opinion regarding any such arrangements or M.R.’s further need for
treatment.
4