F.B., III, A MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A minor child challenged a dependency petition filed under Florida's compulsory school attendance law for being a habitual truant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, holding that the order denying the motion to dismiss was not appealable as a non-final order.
The circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over dependency petitions filed under section 39.404 for habitual truancy regardless of whether the truancy results from nonenrollment or nonattendance. However, the non-final order denying the motion to dismiss was not subject to appeal as a jurisdictional order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
[1] A circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over a dependency petition alleging habitual truancy, regardless of whether the truancy stems from nonenrollment or nonatt…
[2] Dependency proceedings for habitual truancy may be initiated and maintained independently of any criminal prosecutions or proceedings against parents for school attendanc…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction of a dependency petition filed under section 39.404, Florida Statutes, whether the alleged truancy results from nonenrollment or nonattendance after enrollment.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding subject matter jurisdiction in truancy-based dependency 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 school board employee filed a petition in circuit court under section 39.404, Florida Statutes, seeking to have the appellant, a minor, adjudicated …
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 Dependency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
A person employed by a school board to enforce the Florida Compulsory School Attendance Law (§§ 232.01, et seq., Fla.Stat.), who allegedly had knowledge that a minor was subject to compulsory school attendance and was a habitual truant, filed a petition in the circuit court under section 39.404, Florida Statutes, to have that minor adjudicated dependent for being a habitual truant.
Appellant, the alleged dependent child, appeals from a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss the dependency petition in question. Although the motion to dismiss alleges that the circuit court lacked both subject matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the person of the appellant, we find that appellant’s argument is essentially that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We further find that there was no genuine issue but that (1) if the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, it was properly invoked by the petition and (2) any such jurisdiction was properly perfected by a sufficient service of process on appellant.1
The circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction of a dependency petition filed under section 39.404, Florida Statutes, whether the alleged truancy results from nonenrollment or nonattendance after enrollment. (See § 39.01(9)(d) and § 232.19(1) and (3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1984 Supp.)) Such dependency proceedings may be instituted and maintained without regard to whether criminal prosecutions or proceedings are, or are not, instituted against parents in the county court under section 232.19(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Therefore, the non-final order denying the motion to dismiss was not subject to appeal as a non-final order determining jurisdiction of the person under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. See National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Assn., Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla.1982); E.E. Dean Suavely, Inc. v. Weatherking, Inc., 359 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Howard Niggles Pontiac-Buick, Inc. v. Brooks, 285 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); State Road Department v. Brill, 171 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . For an explanation of the proper meaning of subject matter jurisdiction and its invocation by pleadings and its perfection by service of process, see Florida Power & Light v. Canal Authority, 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of B.E.C. v. State, 481 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…subject-matter jurisdiction over the petitions, on the grounds that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the parents for violations of the compulsory school attendance law under Section 232.-19(1), (2), was rejected in F.B. v. State, 474 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and State v. M.M., 407 So. 2d 987, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Similarly, appellants’ arguments that Section 232.02 does not limit home instruction of a minor child to certified private tutors, that the parents established a “priva…
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Ass'n, Inc., 417 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1982)
- Royal Frozen Fish Co., Inc. v. Amer Seafoods, Inc., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Brill, 171 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Southworth v. Maher, 359 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Howard Niggles Pontiac-Buick, Inc. v. Brooks, 285 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)