GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, T.K. AND D.K., FOSTER PARENTS, APPELLEES
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 Guardian ad Litem Program appealed an order denying a modification of a child's placement. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was not a final, appealable order under Florida's Rules of Appellate Procedure.
No, the order is not appealable under Rule 9.130 because it is a non-final order in a dependency proceeding and does not fall under the categories of appealable non-final orders.
[1] Non-final orders in termination and dependency proceedings are not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii).
[2] Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) applies to non-final orders entered after a final order on authorized motions, not orders contemplating a future final det…
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“This order is a non-final order that is not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Children and Families sought to modify a child's placement, but the request was denied because the proposed adoptive placement was d…
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 Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
The Guardian Litem Program appeals an order denying the Department of Children and Families’s request to modify a child’s placement, because the “proposed prospective adoptive placement of the child ... [was] not appropriate under the circumstances and most importantly, not in the child’s best interests.”
This order is a non-final order that is not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), which allows for appeals from orders determining custody in family law matters, does not encompass non-final orders in termination and dependency proceedings. See Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Honeycutt, 609 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla.1992) (finding that dependency proceedings under chapter 39 do not fall within the traditional definition of “domestic relations” including divorce, separation, custody, support, and adoption); see also In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Out of Cycle), 941 So. 2d 352 (Fla.2006) (declining to adopt amendment to appellate rules to authorize appeals from non-final orders determining the right to custody in juvenile dependency and termination of parental rights cases and noting that the matter is a subject of ongoing study).
The order is also not subject to review under Rule 9.130(a)(4), which allows appeals from “non-final orders entered after final order on authorized motions.” This language refers to motions “directed to some aspect of true finality in the original order or judgment.” In re J.T., 947 So. 2d 1212, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The order in this case is not directed to any prior final order. Rather, it contemplates a future final order, one which will ultimately either grant or deny the foster parents’ petition for adoption. See generally Scott ex. rel. Scott v. Women’s Med. Group, P.A., 837 So. 2d 577, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). This is not the type of “egregious” dependency determination contemplated in Honeycutt which may be reviewed by common law certiorari. 609 So. 2d at 597.
The appeal is dismissed.
STONE and POLEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guardian AD Litem Program v. R.A., 995 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c). E.g., R.J. v. Guardian Ad Litem Program, 993 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 972 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)); see also C.B. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 975 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Accordingly, this court's standard of review is whether the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law. C.B., 975 So.…
-
Walsh v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 380 So. 3d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…we originally designated this as a nonfinal appeal, there is no authority pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 for review of nonfinal placement orders in dependency. See, e.g., Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 972 So. 2d 871, 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), which allows for appeals from orders determining custody in family law matters, does not encompass non-final orders in termination and dependency proceedings.”). This Court and the First District…
-
R.J. v. Guardian AD Litem Program, 993 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…-final order changing the placement of R.J.’s son. Because there is no rule authorizing the direct appeal of this type of non-final order in a termination of parental rights case, see Guardian Ad Litem Program v. Department of Children and Families, 972 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we treat the matter as a certiorari proceeding. In this case, the trial court found that the placement would be in the child’s best interest, see section 39.522(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and the evidence supports the trial co…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Honeycutt, 609 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1992)
- Scott v. Women's Med. Grp., P.A., 837 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (out of Cycle), 941 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2006)
- In the Interest of J.T. v. Heart of Adoptions, Inc., 947 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)