GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
A guardian ad litem program sought review of a trial court's decision to deny a motion for postdisposition change of placement and visitation in a child dependency case. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision to keep a child placed with her paternal grandparent (along with half-siblings) rather than with foster parents seeking adoption, emphasizing the trial judge's superior position to evaluate the child's best interests and the statutory preference for sibling placement.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for postdisposition change of placement and motion for visitation. The trial judge was in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate how best to provide for the child's care, and the statutory directive to make every possible effort to place siblings in the same home supported the decision.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order if the notice of appeal is not filed within the time prescribed by the rules of appellate procedure.
[2] A trial court's determination regarding child placement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
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“the trial judge under the circumstances of this case is in a better position than we are to evaluate how best to provide for the care of M.Z.”
Establishes the appellate court's deference to the trial judge's superior position to assess the child's best interests based on firsthand observation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.Z., a child in foster care, was placed with her two half-siblings with the paternal grandparent following a Department of Children and Families (DCF…
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 Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
This is yet another difficult case growing out of the desire of foster parents to adopt a child formerly under their care in the face of a recommendation by the Department of Children and Families for a different placement.1 The trial court agreed with DCF, and placed the child, M.Z., along with her two half-siblings with the paternal grandparent of the half-siblings.
We affirm for several reasons, perhaps most importantly because the trial judge under the circumstances of this case is in a better position than we are to evaluate how best to provide for the care of M.Z. See § 39.522, Fla. Stat. (2005). We affirm, as well, because the appellant attempts by this appeal to challenge the sufficiency of a motion presented by DCF to change the placement of the child. That motion led to the order that initially placed M.Z. with the paternal grandparent of the half-siblings. The order, however, was rendered seven months prior to the commencement of this appeal. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to review the order that gives rise to the primary complaints of the appellant. See Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(b), requiring the notice of commencement to be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Thus, in this proceeding we are only able to review the denial by the trial court of the appellant’s motion for postdisposition change of placement and motion for visitation. We review this determination of the trial court using an abuse of discretion standard. Cf., Dep’t of Children & Families v. T.L., 854 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of this order, particularly in view of section 39.001(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2005), instructing the courts to make “every possible effort” to place siblings in the same home.
AFFIRM.
PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . While this case reached us as a petition for writ of certiorari, we consider it an appeal from a non-final order entered after a final order, and review it pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Dep't of Children & Families v. T.L., 854 So. 2d 819, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.U. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 940 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Department of Children and Families, 936 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. T.L., 854 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)