A.G., NATURAL FATHER OF C.G., PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENTS
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 natural father sought a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to rule on his motions and to order DCFS and the Guardian Ad Litem to serve him with all notices and documents in a dependency case. The court denied relief regarding the void order claim but granted mandamus requiring service of all party notices and documents to the father.
The court denied mandamus as to the motion for relief from void order, finding that the petitioner was attempting to relitigate an issue already disposed of by direct appeal. However, the court granted mandamus compelling DCFS and the Guardian Ad Litem to serve the father with all copies of items required to be served on all parties in a dependency case, based on fairness considerations.
[1] A motion for relief from a void order cannot be used to circumvent a prior appellate decision that declared an order final and unappealable.
[2] A party seeking to relitigate an issue already decided on direct appeal is attempting to obtain a second opportunity to raise the same claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“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.”
Establishes that petitioner was barred from relitigating the void order issue through mandamus after direct appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.G. is the natural father of C.G. A trial court adjudicated C.G. a dependent child on November 21, 1994. A.G. filed a motion for relief from void ord…
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 Case cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner A.G., the natural father of C.G., seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to (i) rule on his consolidated Motion for Extraordinary Relief, Motion for Relief from Void Order and Motion for Order of Transcription and (ii) to order Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and the Guardian Ad Li-tem to serve copies on Petitioner of all notices, hearing orders, documents, etc. required to be served on parties in a dependency case. We deny in part and grant in part.
In his Motion for Relief from Void Order, petitioner claims the trial court lacked legal authority 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 disposed of by his direct appeal. He is thus seeking a second bite at the apple. Accordingly, we decline to issue the requested writ.
We do, however, grant petitioner’s request for mandamus compelling DCFS and the Guardian Ad Litem to serve him with all copies of those items required to be served on all parties in a dependency case. The trial court determined petitioner had standing to seek a modification of the custody order of D.A. Although petitioner is technically not a party as to the child D.A.1 under Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.210(a), we believe that fairness requires the trial court enter an order directing that petitioner be served with all copies of those items required to be served on all parties in a dependency case. Our decision is limited to the facts of this case and is not an attempt to expand the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
Denied in part. Granted in part.
POLEN, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . A.G., although the natural father of C.G., is not a parent or legal guardian of D.A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A.G. and D.J. v. Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs., 745 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)