IN THE INTEREST OF DB, TB, AB, MINOR CHILDREN. BETTY BRYAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Betty Bryan appealed a final order of permanent commitment for subsequent adoption of minor children. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Bryan's post-judgment motion for new trial was not authorized under Florida's Juvenile Rules, making her notice of appeal untimely. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the motion for new trial was authorized under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore timely, denying the motion to dismiss.
The court held that a motion for new trial is an authorized motion in permanent commitment cases because, although not provided for in the Juvenile Rules, it is authorized under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which apply to juvenile proceedings when the Juvenile Rules do not specifically address the matter. Therefore, the notice of appeal filed after denial of the motion for new trial is timely, and the court has jurisdiction.
[1] A motion for new trial is not authorized under the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure in permanent commitment cases.
[2] The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply to circuit court proceedings of a civil nature and special statutory procedures not covered by other specific rules.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The statutory procedure for permanent commitment for subsequent adoption is found in section 39.41(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978). We find no answer to our problem in the statutes.”
Establishes that the statutes do not address whether a motion for new trial is available in permanent commitment cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final order of permanent commitment for subsequent adoption was entered on November 9, 1979. The appellant/mother filed a Motion for New Trial or to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Post-Judgment Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
ORFINGER, Judge.
A final order of permanent commitment for subsequent adoption was entered November 9, 1979. The appellant/mother thereupon filed a “Motion for New Trial or to Vacate Judgment” which was heard by the trial court on November 28, 1979, and denied by written order entered December 13, 1979. The notice of appeal was filed January 11, 1980. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the post-judgment motion filed by the mother is a nullity, thereby resulting in the notice of appeal being untimely. If the post-judgment motion is an authorized motion, Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal is timely, otherwise it is not and the court lacks jurisdiction.
The statutory procedure for permanent commitment for subsequent adoption is found in section 39.41(4), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978).
We find no answer to our problem in the statutes. The Rules of Juvenile Procedure govern procedures in the circuit court in the exercise of its jurisdiction over children. These rules are to be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration.
Rule 8.010, Fla.R.Juv.P. Pursuing this mandate, in reviewing these rules, we find no provision for filing a “Motion for New Trial.” Rule 8.230 provides for a motion to vacate judgment, but it specifically does not apply to permanent commitment cases. Similarly, Rule 8.240 provides for relief from judgments or orders, and except for correction of clerical errors, it likewise specifically excludes from its scope permanent commitment cases.
We find no other mention of a “Motion for New Trial” except in Rule 8.180(d), which deals with speedy trial and which is not otherwise pertinent here, except that it recognizes the existence of a “Motion for New Trial”1 as something distinct from a motion to vacate judgment.
Since the juvenile rules do not otherwise mention a motion for new trial, and since Rule 8.180 at least recognizes its existence, some other rule or procedure must breathe life into it, and we turn to the Rules of Civil Procedure for assistance.
Rule 1.010, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, applies those rules to all suits of a civil nature and all special statutory procedures in the circuit courts except those to which probate and guardianship rules or summary claims rules apply. Obviously, neither the probate rules nor the summary claims rules apply to the case sub judiee. Although not specifically stated in the civil rules, we recognize that the juvenile rules would apply in any matter specifically addressed therein which might conflict with the civil rules, but where as here, the juvenile rules do not apply, we think the civil rules take over.
Rule 1.530, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically provides for motions for new trial, so the reference to this form of motion in the juvenile rules can only have reference to the motion as authorized in the civil rules.
Finding as we do that the motion for new trial sub judiee was authorized, the motion to dismiss the appeal is
DENIED.
CROSS and COBB, JJ., concur. . Rule 8.180(d), “Effect of Mistrial; Order of New Trial. A person who is to be tried again shall be brought to trial within ninety (90) days from the date of declaration of a mistrial by the trial court, the date of an order by the trial court, granting a new trial, the date of an order by the trial court granting a motion to vacate a judgment, . . . ” (Emphasis supplied).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fruh v. State, 430 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…medical examination of the [*584] parent) but do not specifically address the matter of the psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the parents, it is appropriate to turn to the rules of civil procedure for guidance. See In the Interest of D.B., 383 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Rule 1.360(a) specifically provides for the physical and mental examination of persons as follows: Order for Examination. When the mental or physical condition, including the blood group, of a party or of a person in the custod…