context: Under subsection (6), the first determination to be made is "the suitability or nonsuitability for adjudication and commitment of the child to the [Department." SS 985.433(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). This Court has recognized that subsection (6) gives wide discretion to the trial court in determining whether to commit a child to the Department and that the rigorous analysis in E.A.R. does not apply to this initial determination.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 122 So.3d 928, 930
citation_a.parenthetical: finding E.A.R. did not apply to the trial court's initial decision to reject probation in favor of commitment, but error occurred when the trial court committed the juvenile before obtaining the Department's recommendation as to the appropriate restrictiveness level
citation_a.sentence: Cf. B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (finding E.A.R. did not apply to the trial court’s initial decision to reject probation in favor of commitment, but error occurred when the trial court committed the juvenile before obtaining the Department’s recommendation as to the appropriate restrictiveness level); A.L.M. v. State, 176 So.3d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (affirming the disposition order that adjudicated the juvenile delinquent and found probation not appropriate, but reversing the trial court’s nonsecure placement and remanding to first get a recommendation of a restrictiveness level from the Department before committing the juvenile).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 122 So.3d 928, 930
citation_b.parenthetical: "Probation is not a restrictiveness level because it is a limitation on the freedom of the child  1/8  lieu of commitment to the custody of the [Department.' "
citation_b.sentence: J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding the E.A.R. analysis did not apply to the trial court’s initial determination made under section 985.433(6) to reject the Department’s recommendation of probation in favor of commitment); B.K.A. v. State, 122 So.3d 928, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“Probation is not a restrictiveness level because it is a limitation on the freedom of the child ⅛ lieu of commitment to the custody of the [Department.’ ”) (citing § 985.03(44), Fla. Stat.) (emphasis in original). Here, the trial court apparently advised the Department in advance that it intended to commit M.J. and requested an alternative commitment recommendation.