W.W. FATHER OF N.S., A CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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 First District Court of Appeal clarifies its jurisdiction to review post-dependency orders on authorized motions that fully resolve the issues raised. Following a recent amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) effective January 1, 2015, the court holds that such orders are final and reviewable by appeal rather than certiorari.
Post-dependency orders on authorized motions that fully resolve the issues raised in the motions are final orders reviewable by appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1), rather than by certiorari. The recent amendment to Rule 9.130(a)(4) clarifies that post-final orders are reviewable on the same basis as similar orders issued before a final order.
[1] An order denying a motion to reinstate supervised visitation and a motion to declare a statute unconstitutional is properly reviewed by appeal, not by petition for writ o…
[2] Orders entered on post-dependency motions seeking authorized relief that fully resolve the issues raised in the motions are final in nature and reviewable as final orders…
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“a post-dependency order on an authorized motion that fully resolves the issues raised by the motion is final in nature, and is therefore reviewable as a final order”
Establishes the core holding that such orders are final and appealable rather than interlocutory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW.W. sought review of an order denying his motion to reinstate supervised visitation and his motion to declare section 39.0139, Florida Statutes, unco…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(4) cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON JURISDICTION
W.W. seeks review of an Order denying W.W.’s motion to reinstate supervised visitation and his motion to declare section 39.0139, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional, by petition for writ of certiorari. Having determined that review of this post-dependency final order is properly by appeal rather than by petition for writ of certiorari, we treat the petition as having invoked our appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1).
This Court, along with the Fifth and Fourth Districts, has recognized that an order entered on a post-dependency motion seeking authorized relief that fully resolves the issues raised in the motion is generally reviewed by appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). See J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 So.3d 808, 809 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); D.T. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 632, 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (affirming order denying motion for reunification); see also R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So.3d 1029, 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (finding jurisdiction to review post-disposition dependency order pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), and rejecting the argument that there is never any review by appeal of non-final orders in dependency cases); A.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 834 So.2d 350, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reviewing, pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4), dependency order directing no contact between the mother and dependent child).
Recent amendment to rule 9.130(a)(4), however, requires us to revisit the question of our jurisdiction to review such orders. As of January 1, 2015, rule 9.130(a)(4) was amended to remove the phrase “orders entered after final order on authorized motion.” See In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, — So.3d -, -, 2014 WL 5714099, *7 (Fla. Nov. 6, 2014). The accompanying Committee Notes provide that the “deletion clarifies that non-final orders entered after a final order are no more or less reviewable than the same type of order would be if issued before a final order,” and indicate that the amendment is intended to resolve conflicting approaches to review that have arisen as a result of the stricken language. This view is consistent with the view expressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Clearwater Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Sampson, 336 So.2d 78, 79 (Fla.1976), which provides for appeal of post-judgment orders noting that many post-judgment orders are not really non-final in the same way as interlocutory orders. A post-dependency order on an authorized motion that fully resolves the issues raised by the motion is final in nature, and is therefore reviewable as a final order.
In light of this recent amendment to rule 9.130(a)(4), we conclude that henceforth, orders entered on post-dependency motions seeking authorized relief that fully resolve the issues raised in the motions shall be reviewed as final orders pursuant *1001to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(1).
LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)…Third District Court of Appeal in M.M. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 170 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the First District in W.W. v. Guardian Ad Litem Program, 159 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), on a question of law. The issue before us today is whether a post-dependency order that is subject to future modification for purposes of child welfare and parental visitation is reviewable as a final order by appeal, as an inte…
Authorities Cited
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- Monfiston v. State, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- D.T. Mother of N.N. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 54 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- R.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 19 So. 3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- J.S. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 75 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- A.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 834 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)