E.M.J., MOTHER OF I.C.H. AND J.C.H., MINOR CHILDREN, 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.
The trial court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction to prevent child abuse under section 39.504 before entry of the final adoption judgment, but violated the appellant's due process rights by failing to hold a full evidentiary hearing on the Department's entitlement to the injunction.
A trial court retains jurisdiction under section 39.013(2) to hear a motion for an injunction to prevent child abuse filed before entry of a final adoption judgment, but must hold a full evidentiary hearing to determine the Department's entitlement to such an injunction.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction under section 39.013(2) to hear a motion for an injunction to prevent child abuse filed before entry of a final adoption judgment, even…
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 intelligenceThe Department of Children and Families sought an injunction to prevent child abuse against the appellant, the biological mother of children who were …
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 Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant claims that the trial court committed reversible error in granting the Department’s motion for an injunction to prevent child abuse pursuant to section 39.504, Florida Statutes (2012), because (1) the court lost jurisdiction after the adoption of the children; (2) the adoptive parent was not served with the motion in violation of her due process rights; and (3) the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing once appellant objected to the injunction. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court had jurisdiction under section 39.013(2), Florida Statutes (2012), to hear the Department’s motion for an *247injunction, which was filed before entry of the final judgment of adoption. See In re S.N.W., 912 So.2d 368, 873-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In addition, appellant did not have standing to assert a due process claim on behalf of the non-appealing adoptive parent. See C.K. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 65 So.3d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). However, the Department correctly concedes the trial court violated appellant’s due process rights by not requiring the Department to prove its entitlement to an injunction under section 39.504 at a full evidentiary hearing. See Dep’t of Children & Families v. D.B.D, 42 So.3d 916, 920-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). See also Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So.3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court hold an eviden-tiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
CLARK, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of S.N.W. v. S.C.W. & Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 912 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Achurra v. Achurra, 80 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Dep't OF Child. & Families v. D.B.D., 42 So. 3d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- C.K. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 65 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)