gives the trial court wide discretion in determining the suitability of commitment of the child to the Department.” J.B.S. v. State, 90 So.3d 961, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). And here, the Department recommended probation, which is not a commitment level. 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 ‘in lieu of commitment to the custody of the department.’ § 985.03(44), Fla. Stat.”) (emphasis in original). Thus, by declining to comply with the trial court’s request to recommend a commitment level, the Department waived its right to object to any commitment level imposed by the trial court. Cf. Panzer Law, P.A. v. Palm Beach Cty. Sch. Dist., 150 So.3d 823, 825-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (<HOLDING>). The Department’s failure to recommend a
holding that if an applicant fails to meet the standard for asylum he a fortiori fails to meet the requirements for withholding of removal and relief under the cat holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements holding that courts look to substance of plea for relief to determine nature of pleading not merely title of pleading holding that a plaintiff cannot amend the complaint  in a memorandum in opposition to a motion to dismiss  because such amendment fails to satisfy utahs pleading requirements citations omitted