K.K.J., a child, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee. (2026)

Appellant, K.K.J., challenges the trial court's order committing her to a high-risk residential commitment program after she pled no contest to grand theft of a firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of section 985.433(7)(b), Florida Statutes, as interpreted in E.A.R. v. State, 4 So. 3d 614 (Fla. 2009), when it departed from the Department of Juvenile Justice's recommended placement within a moderate-risk program. Specifically, the trial court did not provide a “legally sufficient foundation” for disregarding the Department's recommendation “by identifying significant information that the Department has overlooked, failed to sufficiently consider, or misconstrued” as to Appellant's needs and the public risk she poses. Id. at 638. The trial court's generalized conclusions are insufficient to disregard the Department's recommendation. See M.H. v. State, 69 So. 3d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“In order to deviate lawfully, a trial court must do more than place generalized reasons on the record; it must engage in a well-reasoned and complete analysis of the [predisposition report] and the type of facility to which the trial court intends to send the child.”); J.W.B. v. State, __ So. 3d __, 2026 WL 816515 at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 25, 2026) (same).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the disposition order for the trial court to provide sufficient reasons for deviating from the Department's recommendation or, in the alternative, to impose the Department's recommendation. State v. J. J., 359 So. 3d 863, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023); C.M.H. v. State, 25 So. 3d 678, 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Reversed and Remanded.

Per Curiam.

Osterhaus, C.J., and Lewis and Winokur, JJ., concur.