Whether the court of appeals violated this Honorable Court's 'fundamental rule of judicial restraint' by failing to address whether Doris Freyre had standing to bring an associational ADA claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Child Protective Investigations Division (“CPID”) of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (“HCSO”) received a report of prospective child abuse, abandonment and/or neglect from the Florida Department of Children and Families’ (“DCF”) Abuse Hotline regarding Doris Freyre’s disabled daughter, MAF. After investigating the allegations and attending a multi-agency staffing, probable cause existed to remove MAF from her mother’s custody. This removal was confirmed the following day by the Honorable Vivian Corvo at a shelter hearing, wherein Doris Freyre was represented by counsel. MAF was placed into the State’s custody pending reunification with Doris Freyre, only if certain conditions could be met. However, the service providers from Hillsborough Kids, Incorporated (“HKI”’) and other state entities could not meet those conditions. Ultimately, the service providers from HKI in conjunction with other governmental agencies such as Children’s Medical Services (“CMS”) and Tampa General Hospital (“TGH”) were only able to secure placement at a skilled nursing facility in Miami, as assessed and recommended by the state’s medical professionals and MAF’s attending physician. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the court of appeals violated this Honorable Court’s “fundamental rule of judicial restraint” by failing to address whether Doris Freyre had standing to bring an associational ADA claim ii thereby properly invoking the jurisdiction of the district court and the court of appeals. 2. Whether HCSO, in conducting child protective investigations under a Grant Agreement with DCF on the State’s behalf in accordance with Florida Statute §39.3065 acted as an “arm of the state” and is therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment Immunity.