D.W.G., FATHER OF C.M.G., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
Father's petition for writ of certiorari challenging a dependency order reunifying the child with the mother is denied because the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
A trial court's dependency order reunifying a child with the mother does not depart from the essential requirements of law and is therefore affirmed on certiorari review.
[1] A notice of appeal from a non-appealable dependency order may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c).
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.W.G., the father of C.M.G., appealed a September 2006 dependency order that reunified the child with the mother and an October 2006 permanency revie…
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 Reunification cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
D.W.G. appeals a September 2006 dependency order that reunified C.M.G. with the mother and an October 2006 order on judicial review/permanency review and notice of next hearing.
D.W.G. now suggests, and the Department of Children and Families agrees, that the challenged order is not an appeal-able order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). However, this court treats the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c); S.H. v. Deft of Children & Families, 950 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); In re 726 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Interest of K.D. & C.M., 679 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Though D.W.G. addresses much of his argument against the October order on judicial review/permanency review and notice of next hearing, he requests primarily that this court reverse the September order of modification of custody/placement. “The standard of review to be applied by an appellate court in considering common law certiorari is whether the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law.” A.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 957 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1166 (Fla.2000)).
Finding no departure from the essential requirements of the law, we DENY the Petition.
PALMER, C.J. and MONACO, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.P. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 17 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…etition for writ of certiorari); Dep’t of Children & Families v. S.T., 963 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (denying petition for writ of certiora-ri seeking to overturn order granting motion for reunification); D.W.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 961 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (treating appeal from reunification order and order on judicial review/permanency review and notice of next hearing as petition for writ of certiorari); B.A.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 860 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (…
Authorities Cited
- Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2000)
- IN the Interest OF K.D. and C.M. v. State, 679 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- A.P. and V.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 957 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- S.H. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 950 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Jackson v. State, 950 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- In the Interest of B.A.B. and K.N.B. C.W. v. State of Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 726 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)