F.C., FATHER OF T.L., MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
F.C., FATHER OF T.L., MINOR CHILD, APPELLANT,
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
5 So. 3d 794
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2009)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Appellant F.C. appeals an order terminating his parental rights as to the child T.L. He argues that there was error in terminating his parental rights because the evidence established that the Department of Children and Families failed to meet its statutory burden to perform a diligent search. The Department has filed an amended concession of error on this issue which we find to be proper. Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed as it relates to F.C. and the child T.L. and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
REVERSED.
BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrett Medeiros v. Firth, 200 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…t will be necessary.” Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002). A default judgment entered against a defendant as to liability is not a final judgment; rather, it is a non-final, non-appealable order. Singleton v. Realty Land Invs., Inc., 5 So. 3d 794, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Appeals of non-final orders to the district courts of appeal are limited to those enumerated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). Because the rule does not authorize an appeal from an order vacating a defaul…
-
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Buchalter, 14 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…determining the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief are not appealable until final judgment. See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla.2000); see also Singleton v. Realty Land Invs., Inc., 5 So. 3d 794, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing an appeal, holding that circuit court order styled as “judgment by default” as to liability, but reserving the issue of damages, was not an appealable order under rule 9.130). Further, even if the order was appea…