O. T., FATHER OF R. T., O.T. AND S. T., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2013-07-24
No. 1D13-1234
PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
116 So. 3d 1290 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Appellant did not preserve any issues for appeal of the order terminating his parental rights, because he did not move for a judgment of dismissal below, either at the close of the Department’s case or at the close of his own. See J.F.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 100 So.3d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); J.M. v. Florida Dep’t of Children & Families, 38 So.3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); K.J. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 33 So.3d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); J.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 825 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Because the Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal disagree that a parent must preserve issues for appellate review via motion for judgment of dismissal, we certify conflict with R.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 49 So.3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); and H.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 964 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), review dismissed, 985 So.2d 1059 (Fla.2008).

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …tion to dismiss is necessary to preserve for appellate review claims related to the sufficiency of evidence adduced at trial, and the failure to make such a motion constrains this Court to affirm the trial court. See O.T. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 116 So. 3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (affirming the termination of the father’s parental rights because he did not preserve any issues by moving for a judgment of dismissal at either the close of DCF’s case or at the close of his own); K.J. ex rel. A.J. v. De…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw