IN THE INTEREST OF T.M. AND F.M., III. F.M., JR., APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the September 21 order was sufficiently final to be appealable, or alternatively, the notice of appeal was prematurely filed and jurisdiction would be accepted.
The father appealed an order terminating his parental rights and reaffirming dependency findings. The Department moved to dismiss, arguing the order w…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
On September 21, 1992, the circuit court entered an adjudicatory order which reaffirmed a dependency finding as to the children T.M. and F.M., III, and which terminated the parental rights of their natural father. This order was entered pursuant to section 39.467(7), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992). A timely notice of appeal was filed by the father on October 16. Subsequently, on November 9 a disposition order was entered in accordance with section 39.469. This order again reaffirmed the dependency adjudications and the termination of the father’s parental rights. The children were permanently committed to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for adoption. The father did not file an additional notice of appeal.
The department, as appellee in this cause, now moves for dismissal of the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. It is appellee’s position that the September 21 order was not a final order nor an appeal-able non-final order. The department contends that the November 9 order was an appealable final order and the father filed no timely notice as to it.
We deny the motion to dismiss. As discussed by this court in the context of delinquency proceedings, the orders authorized by chapter 39 of the Florida Statutes do not always fit neatly into the traditional categories of final and non-final orders. See C.L.S. v. State, 586 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). We nevertheless regard the September 21 order as sufficiently final on the question of the father’s parental rights to be appealable. Even if it were not and only the November 9 order is appealable, we would treat the October 16 notice of appeal as prematurely filed and accept jurisdiction. Lauda v. H.F. Mason Equipment Corp., 407 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA1981); Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(m).
MOTION DENIED.
JOANOS, C.J., and ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 664 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…written order of disposition briefly stating the facts upon which its decision to terminate parental rights is made.” Moore filed his notice of appeal directed to the adjudicatory order entered by Judge Mathis. In In the Interest of T.M. and F.M., 614 So. 2d 561 (Pla. 1st DCA 1993) (motion to dismiss denied), 622 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), approved, 641 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1994)), a similar situation arose and the question of the appealability of an adjudicatory order terminating parental rights was addres…
-
G.L.S. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 724 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1998)…written order of disposition briefly stating the facts upon which its decision to terminate parental rights is made.” Moore filed his notice of appeal directed to the adjudicatory order entered by Judge Mathis. In In the Interest of T.M. and F.M., 614 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (motion to dismiss denied), 622 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), approved, 641 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1994), a similar situation arose and the question of the appealability of an adjudicatory order terminating parental rights-was addres…1 / 2
-
G.L.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 700 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…[*100] VAN NORTWICK, Judge, specially concurring. I agree with the majority that In Interest of T.M., 614 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), compels that we dismiss the instant appeal. I write separately only to point out an alternative approach for considering these jurisdictional issues which differs from the analysis in both T.M. and Moore v. Department of Health…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lauda v. H. F. Mason Equip. Corp., 407 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- In the Interest of C.L.S. v. State, 586 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)