## Facts

- M.W. was adjudicated a dependent child due to neglect and spent roughly a decade in the legal custody of the Florida Department of Children and Family Services (DCF), moving through various placements.
- As a teenager, M.W. was admitted to a hospital psychiatric unit for psychological and behavioral issues.
- Professionals offered conflicting recommendations: residential treatment versus therapeutic foster care; after further evaluation, recommendations shifted toward therapeutic foster care, then back to residential treatment after an aggressive incident.
- At a dependency status hearing, both DCF and M.W. requested an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed placement recommendations.
- The dependency court agreed an evidentiary hearing was needed but could not schedule it for approximately six weeks.
- Over M.W.’s objection, the court ordered him placed in a secure residential mental-health facility pending the later evidentiary hearing.
- M.W. sought habeas corpus relief challenging the commitment; the district court of appeal ultimately denied relief and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether specified statutory hearing requirements were necessary before such placement.

## Issues

1. Whether a dependency court must conduct an evidentiary hearing complying with section 39.407(4) and the Baker Act’s involuntary inpatient placement requirements in section 394.467(1) before ordering a dependent child in DCF custody into a residential mental-health treatment facility.
2. Whether constitutional due process independently requires a Baker Act–style evidentiary hearing before ordering such residential placement.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative.
- The Court held that neither Chapter 39 nor the Florida Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing meeting the substantive and procedural requirements of section 394.467(1) before ordering residential mental-health placement for a dependent child in DCF custody.
- The Court nevertheless required that the child be afforded a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the placement decision through appropriate juvenile-court procedures, typically through counsel and/or a guardian ad litem.
- The Court approved the outcome denying habeas relief and upholding the dependency court’s authority to order the residential placement as a placement decision within the dependency proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Dependency-court residential mental-health placement of a child in state custody under Chapter 39 does not automatically trigger the Baker Act’s involuntary inpatient placement procedures in section 394.467(1).
- A dependency placement order into residential mental-health treatment is treated as part of the ongoing dependency disposition and review process, not as a separate Baker Act civil commitment.
- Due process requires, at minimum, a meaningful opportunity for the child (through counsel and/or a guardian ad litem) to be heard on a placement decision that materially affects liberty and treatment.
- Ongoing juvenile-court jurisdiction and review over dependency placements supports the conclusion that full Baker Act procedures are not required for each residential placement decision.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that dependency courts may order residential mental-health placement for a child in DCF custody without conducting a Baker Act–compliant evidentiary hearing, so long as the child is given a meaningful opportunity to be heard within the dependency process.


M.W. v. Davis, 756 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2000)