Department of Children and Families v. Kenneth Williams, Jr., and State of Florida

── Department of Children and Families v. Kenneth Williams, Jr., and State of Florida ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D2026-0954 LT Case No. 2001-CF-000946-A _____________________________ DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. KENNETH WILLIAMS, JR., AND STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. _____________________________ Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Joel D. Fritton, Judge. Logan Bartholomew, Assistant Regional Counsel, of Department of Children and Families, Orlando, for Petitioner. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zachary L. Wiseman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee, State of Florida. No Appearance for Remaining Respondents. May 8, 2026 HARRIS, J.  The Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash the lower court’s order committing Kenneth Williams, Jr. (“Williams”) to its care. As conceded by the State, the lower court did not follow the statutory requirements for committing Williams to DCF custody. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order of commitment. On May 21, 2002, Williams was adjudicated guilty of lewd or lascivious battery and placed on probation. Five months later he was charged with a violation of his probation. He was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to DCF custody. On June 27, 2025, DCF reported to the lower court that Williams no longer met the criteria for commitment pursuant to section 916.15(2), Florida Statutes, and recommended that Williams be placed on conditional release pursuant to section 916.17, Florida Statutes. On July 22, 2025, the court placed Williams on conditional release. Shortly thereafter, Williams’ case manager wrote an unsworn letter to the court stating that Williams failed to comply with the terms of his conditional release. Williams was also temporarily held pursuant to the Baker Act (Chapter 394, Florida Statues). Williams’ counsel filed a motion to appoint a mental health expert to evaluate Williams, and on December 12, 2025, the court granted the motion. The appointed expert, Dr. Harry Krop, Ph.D., authored a report following his evaluation of Williams. Dr. Krop opined that Williams was competent to proceed and made no mention of Williams being a danger to himself or others. Dr. Krop further opined that Williams did not meet criteria for involuntary commitment to a forensic or civil State hospital. Despite Dr. Krop’s evaluation and opinions, the court entered an order committing Williams to DCF pursuant to section 916.15(2), Florida Statutes, which requires a finding that a defendant is “manifestly dangerous to himself or herself or others.” § 916.15(2), Fla. Stat. The court’s order contains no finding that Williams presents a danger to 2 himself or others. DCF then filed the instant petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash the lower court’s order committing Williams to its custody. To demonstrate entitlement to certiorari relief, the petitioner must show the following: (1) the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it issued a ruling, (2) the ruling resulted in a material injury that will continue throughout the case, and (3) the injury cannot be corrected on post- judgment appeal. Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. Campbell, 295 So. 3d 868, 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). The last two prongs are referred to as “irreparable harm.” State v. Victorino, 372 So. 3d 772, 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023). For this Court to have jurisdiction, the petitioner must demonstrate irreparable harm. Id. “As a general rule, certiorari is the proper vehicle for seeking this court’s review of orders committing an individual involuntarily.” Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. Despaigne, 348 So. 3d 122