IN THE INTEREST OF J.P., A CHILD. J.P., PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, AND P.S., 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.
The Father sought a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court order granting the maternal grandmother party status in a dependency proceeding for their minor child. The court held that grandparents cannot intervene as parties in dependency proceedings under Florida law, though they may participate as non-parties, and quashed the lower court's order.
A grandparent cannot intervene as a party in a dependency proceeding because the statutory definition of 'party' in dependency cases does not include grandparents. However, grandparents may be allowed to participate as non-parties in accordance with the applicable statutes and rules.
[1] A grandparent cannot intervene as a party in a dependency proceeding.
[2] Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to review an order granting a grandparent's motion to intervene as a party in a dependency proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In dependency proceedings, a party is defined as the parent or parents of the child, the petitioner, the department, the guardian ad litem or the representative of the guardian ad litem program when the program has been appointed, and the child.”
Establishes the statutory definition of 'party' in dependency proceedings, which does not include grandparents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dependency proceeding was filed regarding a minor child, J.P. During the proceeding, the maternal grandmother (P.S.) filed a motion to intervene as …
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 Parental Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
J.P. (the Father) is the father of the minor child, J.P. The Father petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court order that granted P.S.’s motion to intervene as a party. P.S. (the Maternal Grandmother) is the child’s maternal grandmother. Because a grandparent cannot intervene as a party in a dependency proceeding, we grant the petition and quash the circuit court’s order.
During the dependency proceeding, the circuit court granted the Maternal Grandmother’s motion to intervene as a party. In his petition for certiorari review, the Father argues that the circuit court’s order should be quashed because the Maternal Grandmother could intervene as a participant in the dependency proceeding, but not as a party. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) correctly concedes error based on J.L. v. G.M., 687 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA1997).
A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate to review an order granting a grandparent’s motion to intervene as a party in a dependency proceeding. Id. at 977. The jurisdictional requirements for certiorari review are met in this case because the circuit court’s order may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature. See id. (finding that orders granting a grandparent’s motion to intervene as a party would interfere with [the parents’] parental rights, [and] also with the actions deemed necessary by [DCF] to prevent risk to the child while the dependency case is pending). Thus we turn our attention to whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law.
In dependency proceedings, a party is defined as the parent or parents of the child, the petitioner, the department, the guardian ad litem or the representative of the guardian ad litem program when the program has been appointed, and the child. 39.01(50), Fla. Stat. (2007); see also Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.210(a). The plain language of the statute does not include grandparents within the definition of a party. Here, as in J.L., the circuit court
departed from the essential requirements of the law by allowing persons who do not fall within the definition of “parties” to intervene. The granting of party status to these relatives was also contrary to Florida’s strong public policy against unwarranted interference with *255the parenting decisions of an intact family unit.
Accordingly, we grant the Father’s petition for writ of certiorari and quash the circuit court’s order. On remand, the circuit court may consider whether the Maternal Grandmother should be allowed to intervene as a participant in accordance with section 39.01(49) and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.210(b).
Petition granted, order quashed, and case remanded.
VILLANTI, J., and GALLEN, THOMAS M., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Superior Fence & Rail OF N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…eal.1 AFFIRMED. MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, PALMER, ORFINGER, TORPY, LAWSON, EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. . Conversely, an order granting intervention is necessarily interlocutory and can only be reviewed by certiorari. In re J.P., 12 So. 3d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).…
-
Carlisle v. U.S. Bank, 225 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…oldings 2006, Inc. v. McCarty, 985 So. 2d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), and as “an order granting intervention is necessarily interlocutory,” Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing In re J.P., 12 So. 3d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)), the trial court had the inherent authority to reconsider and modify its order granting leave to intervene.1 [*895] We now address whether Carlisle meets the limited exception set forth in Pearlman that permits a non-party t…
-
Guardian AD Litem Statewide v. S. S. and B. S., 335 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…tal Health Ctr., Inc., 859 So. 2d 1233, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003))). In fact, Florida courts have restricted party designation in several cases, limiting parties to those specifically designated by statute. See J.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 12 So. 3d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it allowed the maternal grandmother to intervene as a party in the dependency proceeding); Statewide Guardian Ad Litem Office v. S.O.,…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J.L. and M.O. v. G.M., T.M., P.L., 687 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)