A.G. AND D.J., PETITIONERS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, RESPONDENT
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 Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified its jurisdiction to review a dependency adjudication order after the Florida Supreme Court held that such orders could be appealed either when entered or from a subsequent disposition order. The court dismissed an untimely appeal of a 1994 dependency adjudication because it was a final disposition order that should have been appealed when entered.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the 1994 order because it was a final disposition order that constituted a final appealable order at the time it was entered, and therefore should have been appealed within the time required for appeals. The untimely appeal filed in 1997 cannot be used to challenge an order that was already final.
[1] An order adjudicating dependency can be appealed either at the time it is entered or by appeal from a subsequent final disposition order.
[2] A trial court order that determines dependency and is entered pursuant to a disposition hearing is considered a final disposition order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
States the court's original holding that was later overruled by the Florida Supreme Court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 21, 1994, the trial court entered an order adjudicating children dependent and, on the same date, held a disposition hearing. The parties …
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 Disposition Order cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
We grant the Department’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion filed September 22, 1999, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
In A.G. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 707 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we concluded that an order adjudicating children dependent was a final order which had to be appealed when it was entered. The Florida Supreme Court, after considering conflicting decisions, disagreed with us and held that an order adjudicating dependency can be appealed either at the time it is entered, or by appeal from a subsequent final disposition order.
A. G. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 731 So. 2d 1260 (Fla.1999).
The question now before us is whether we have jurisdiction to review the order adjudicating dependency, where there was no timely appeal taken from that order. This case reached us in its present posture because, in 1997, several years after entry of the November 21, 1994 order finding dependency, which was not appealed, the appellants appealed subsequent orders. They argued, among other things, that the trial court erred in not holding a disposition hearing pursuant to section 39.41, Florida Statutes (1994).
We dismissed the appeal insofar as it was an attempt to appeal the 1994 order because it was untimely, but redesignated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus in regard to appellant’s claim that the trial court should be ordered to conduct a disposition hearing.
We concluded that there had in fact been a disposition hearing on November 21, 1994, the same date the order adjudicating dependency was entered, and denied relief. Our opinion in that case, A.G. v. Department of Children and Family Services, 716 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 729 So. 2d 389 (Fla.1999), reflects the procedural history pertinent to our discussion here.
It follows from our prior conclusion that there had been a disposition hearing on November 21,1994, that the order entered pursuant to that hearing was a disposition order, as well an order determining dependency. As that opinion reflects, the parties entered into an agreement with the Department through mediation, agreeing to forgo certain procedures. For three years following entry of the order at issue, the trial court held numerous status hearings, ordered case studies, evaluations, treatment plans, and the like, placed two of the children in foster care, and conducted periodic judicial review hearings as mandated by Florida law. A.G., 716 So. 2d at 792. All of this was consistent with this order being a disposition order We therefore conclude that the November 1994 order was a disposition order. And it was treated by both the appellants and the Department as such. It was not until 1997 that the appellants took the position that it was not a dispositional order, so that they could attempt to appeal the 1994 order. Because the 1994 order was a final disposition order, we have no jurisdiction to review that order by a notice of appeal filed in 1997. Appeal dismissed.
WARNER, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.G. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program of the Seventeenth Jud. Cir., 769 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…ity to adjudicate C.G. a dependent child on November 21, 1994, since the court had not declared C.G. to be a dependent. Petitioner’s motion in the trial court is an attempt to circumvent our decision in A.G. v. Dept. of Children and Family Services, 745 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on rehearing), in which we held the November 1994 order to be final and one we lacked jurisdiction to review by way of an appeal filed by petitioner in 1997. By his motion, petitioner is seeking to raise an issue that was…
-
A.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 846 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…r and reverse the trial court’s denial of relief. This dependency case has made many appearances in our court in the father’s attempt to appeal an order of adjudication of dependency of his child, C.G. See A.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 745 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); A.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 716 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Although this court determined the father’s appeal was untimely from the order of adjudication entered November 21, 1994, see A.G. v. Dep’t of Childr…
-
Mekertin v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 869 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…y 22 and August 6, 2002 orders dismissing the case under rule 1.070(j). However, because those orders were not timely appealed, this court is without jurisdiction to review them. See Fla. RApp. P. 9.110(b); A.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 745 So. 2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Forszpaniak v. Forszpaniak, 775 So. 2d 352, 352-53 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Even though the July 22nd dismissal was without prejudice to the re-filing of a new lawsuit, the order was nonetheless an appealable order. See Silver…
Authorities Cited
- A.G. and D.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 731 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1999)
- A.G. and D.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 716 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- A.G. and D.J. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 707 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- O'Rourke v. State, 707 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)