G. S.
v.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
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.
This case involves an attorney, Melody D. Dietsch, who failed to comply with multiple court orders in a child dependency appeal. The court issued several orders directing her to file briefs and status reports, which she repeatedly ignored, leading to significant delays in the priority case. Ultimately, the court referred the matter to The Florida Bar for investigation and potential sanctions.
The court found that attorney Dietsch's repeated failures to comply with court orders and the resulting delays in a priority dependency appeal warranted referral to The Florida Bar for investigation and potential disciplinary proceedings.
[1] An attorney's repeated failure to comply with appellate court orders in a priority dependency appeal, despite multiple warnings and show-cause proceedings, may result in…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.146(h) requires this court to give priority to this appeal, and this court expects the attorneys for the parties to carry out their obligations in this proceeding in like fashion.”
This quote establishes the court's expectation of prompt action due to the priority nature of dependency appeals.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorney Melody D. Dietsch was appointed to represent an appellant in a child dependency appeal. Despite multiple orders from the court, she failed 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 Attorney Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Attorney Melody D. Dietsch, Florida Bar number 878390, appeared before this court on Wednesday, October 28, 2020, to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with this court's orders in this appeal of a dependency order. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.146(h) requires this court to give priority to this appeal, and this court expects the attorneys for the parties to carry out their obligations in this proceeding in like fashion.
On March 4, 2020, the Appellant, through trial counsel in the dependency proceeding, filed a notice of appeal.
On March 11, dependency trial counsel filed a status report with an order from the trial court appointing attorney Dietsch to represent the Appellant.
The record on appeal was transmitted to this court on April 16, 2020.
On May 21, 2020, having received no initial brief, this court issued an order directing counsel for the Appellant to serve the initial brief within ten days. Attorney Dietsch did not respond.
On July 8, 2020, this court issued an order noting that attorney Dietsch had not filed a notice of appearance and that an initial brief had not been filed. The order directed dependency trial counsel, as the only counsel of record, and attorney Dietsch to file a status report on the Appellant's representation and on the status of the overdue initial brief. Neither attorney responded.
- 3 - On September 8, 2020, this court issued an order directing attorney Dietsch to serve the initial brief within seven days and cautioning her that a failure to comply could result in sanctions. Attorney Dietsch did not respond.
On September 30, 2020, this court called and left attorney Dietsch a message advising that she had seven days to comply with the aforesaid orders or sanctions proceedings may commence. Attorney Dietsch did not respond.
On October 12, 2020, this court issued an order to show cause directing attorney Dietsch to appear at this court's oral argument session on October 28, 2020, and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to respond to this court's orders of July 8 and September 8, 2020.1
On October 29, 2020, this court issued an order directing attorney Dietsch to, consistent with her representations to the court at the oral argument session, comply in a timely fashion with any pending or future orders of this court, consult with a mentor, and resolve the issues that caused her to have to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed the second time in one year.2 In addition, visits delay finality for the parties, which is particularly important in child dependency proceedings.
2Attorney Dietsch appeared before the court on January 14, 2020, in response to an order to show cause in 2D19-1945, which was a father's appeal of an order terminating his rights to his children and also a case given priority under rule
- 4 - status report within thirty days certifying that she has complied with the directives. Attorney Dietsch failed to file the status report. On October 30, 2020, this court granted attorney Dietsch's motion to withdraw but directed that she would remain in the appeal until she complied with the pending order to show cause. Due to attorney Dietsch's failure to comply with this court's directives and the attendant delays in this dependency proceeding, we refer this matter to The Florida Bar for investigation and initiation of such proceedings as may be appropriate. CASANUEVA, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. 9.146(h). The order to show cause was discharged on January 29 after Attorney Dietsch properly responded to this court's directives.