J.r., Appellant v. Barbara Palmer

Summary

The court answered the first two certified questions in the negative, holding that annual support-plan review does not require the Agency to reassess whether an involuntary residential admission remains proper and that the Agency has no statutory duty to petition for release when circumstances change. It declined to answer the third question because it sought an interpretation of federal constitutional law rather than Florida statutory law. Justices Canady and Pariente, dissenting, would have answered the first two questions affirmatively based on the least-restrictive-setting requirement and the presumption of constitutional validity.