869, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912, 918 (Fla.1985)). “When a court interferes with an executive agency’s discretion in spending its appropriate[d] funds, it is encroaching on the powers of the agency.” Office of State Attorney for Eleventh Judicial Circuit v. Polites, 904 So.2d 527, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). A court may order an executive department to spend funds when a statute or constitution authorizes a court to do so. Courts, however, have rejected the idea that there is a “doctrine of inherent judicial power” that allows a court to direct how an executive department exercises its discretion to spend funds appropriated to the department. Dep’t of Children & Families v. J.H., 831 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Instead, courts have repeatedly held that
holding that the trial court lacked authority to order a refund where the defendants case did not meet the specific statutory requirements authorizing a refund holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that juvenile court that determined child was not dependent had no jurisdiction to thereafter determine custody of child holding that an order for a husband to pay all but three specific debts was not too ambiguous for compliance holding absent statutory authority a trial court could not order the department to pay for longterm therapy by a specific therapist and any and all necessary evaluations for the dependent child