Couch v. State

• Decision Date: 19 November 1979
• Docket Number: No. NN-355,NN-355
• Citation: 377 So.2d 32
• Parties: Bobby Ray COUCH et ux., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 32

377 So.2d 32

Bobby Ray COUCH et ux., Appellants, v.STATE of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Appellee.

No. NN-355.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 19, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1979.

Kathy Hamilton and Stephen Maher, Miami, for appellants.

George Waas, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal raises questions regarding the construction and applicability of Section 120.565, Florida Statutes(declaratory statements by administrative agencies).We must agree with the appellee, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, that its refusal to issue a declaratory statement in this instance was correct.

In their petition for declaratory statement petitioners alleged that they are the parents of a child who was some years ago admitted to Sunland Hospital, Orlando, and thereafter transferred to Sunland Center in Miami.In 1970 the child was placed in a private home under foster care.Visitation problems developed, and the child was subsequently adjudicated a dependent child by a circuit court.Litigation was commenced in the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, concerning petitioners' rights to visitation with the child.At the time of the petition and order appealed from, and at the time of oral argument before this court, that litigation was still pending.The petition requested a declaratory statement as to whether the foster care program supervised by the Department "is and was" governed by certain enumerated regulations (Florida Administrative Code), Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Division of Family Services Manuals, any other rules regulating conciliation services or visitation, or certain provisions of the United States Code.

No hearing on the petition was requested by petitioners, and no evidence in support of their petition was presented.The Department, upon consideration of the petition, ruled that petitioners were not entitled to a declaratory statement.The Department's order recites as the basis for its ruling, among other things, the fact that the issues presented by the petition are presently pending before the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit; and that it would appear that any "controversy . . . or doubt" is capable of resolution by the court"before any wrong has actually been committed".

We have examined the petition and find that it falls short of the requirements necessary to obtain a declaratory statement.The petition...