IN THE INTEREST OF C.G. AND S.G., CHILDREN. W.G., FATHER, 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.
A Florida appellate court addresses a motion for extension of time to file a brief in a parental rights termination appeal, emphasizing the critical need to expedite such cases to prevent children from remaining in legal limbo.
The court grants a short extension but establishes strict new deadlines and procedures, refusing to grant further extensions except on extraordinary grounds and warning of potential sanctions to ensure expedited resolution in parental termination appeals.
[1] Appeals from orders terminating parental rights should be expedited by all parties involved in the appellate process.
[2] Appellate courts will grant extensions of time in parental termination cases only for extraordinary reasons.
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“In this case, the lives of two young children remain in limbo because one or more adults have not cared enough to perform the simple task of preparing a record on appeal.”
Establishes the court's core concern about the prejudicial impact of delay on the children whose parental rights termination is at issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court terminated the father's parental rights on February 5, 1992. The father's court-appointed counsel filed notice of appeal immediately, …
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 Expedited Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The appellant has filed a motion to further extend the time for the filing of his brief in this appeal from an order terminating parental rights. We grant a short extension, but take this opportunity to emphasize the need to expedite such appeals.
The trial court entered an order terminating parental rights on February 5, 1992. The appellant’s court-appointed counsel, recognizing the need to expedite such matters, filed the notice of appeal immediately. Even if the clerk of circuit court had not expedited the preparation of the record and index, under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200 the record was due in this case on April 15, 1992. The appellant’s counsel represents that the record had not been furnished to him as of August 21, 1992. Thus, this appeal is four months behind schedule.
We emphasize that our file does not permit us to determine who is responsible for this delay. The official court reporter, Gregg R. Stone and Associates, requested an extension from this court to prepare a transcript “no later than May 1, 1992.” Because the official court reporter requested no additional extensions, we assume that it either timely prepared and filed this transcript in the trial court, or that it failed to request an additional extension. We have no explanation in our file to explain why a record was not available by mid-May.
Even before the legislature mandated expedited appeals in parental termination cases, see section 39.473, Florida Statutes (1991), it was the policy of this court to expedite such appeals. In this case, the lives of two young children remain in limbo because one or more adults have not cared enough to perform the simple task of preparing a record on appeal.
We order the clerk of circuit court and the court reporter in this case to coordinate with one another so that a record is furnished to the appellant no later than September 9, 1992. The appellant’s initial brief shall be filed and hand delivered to the appellee no later than September 22, 1992. The appellee’s brief shall be filed no later than October 5, 1992. Any request for oral argument must be filed either with the initial brief or the answer brief. No further extensions will be granted except upon extraordinary grounds. This court will schedule the case for expedited resolution. If necessary, sanctions will be imposed to enforce this order. We publish this order as notice that parental termination appeals should be expedited by all persons involved in the process. In the future, we will grant extensions in these cases only for extraordinary reasons and will impose sanctions, if necessary, to assure that these cases are expedited.
DANAHY, Acting C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.S.H. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 843 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2003)…esult only because we fail to afford any Anders-type protections whatsoever which, in my view, could be easily crafted and formulated for fundamental fairness yet not require a full Anders proceeding as it presently exists. . See, e.g., In re C.G., 609 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ("Even before the legislature mandated expedited appeals in parental [rights] termination cases ... it was the policy of this court to expedite such appeals.”); see also C.S. v. S.H., 671 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).…
-
G.L.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 724 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1998)…. Stat. (1991).5 Consistent with that directive, the district courts have correctly emphasized the need to move these cases quickly through the judicial system.6 See In Interest of C.G. v. State, [*1187] Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 609 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Florida courts have also construed the appeal of a termination order to suspend further adoption proceedings. See In Interest of J.R.G. v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 624 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…
-
In the Interest of P.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 944 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…e appeals in juvenile dependency and TPR cases. Even before the legislature required that appeals in TPR cases be expedited in 1990,2 this court’s policy was to expedite such appeals. See W.G. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. (In re C.G.), 609 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). When a juvenile dependency or TPR case is filed in this court, our clerk sends an “IMPORTANT NOTICE” to counsel and to unrepresented parties to notify them of the special time requirements that apply to these cases. In perti…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence