R.V.
v.
DEP'T OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
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's order is affirmed where the appellant's initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal.
[1] An appellate court may summarily affirm an order without requiring an answer brief when the appellant's initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversa…
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 intelligenceR.V., the father, appealed a circuit court order in a Department of Children and Families case involving J.A., the mother.…
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 Motion To Withdraw cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 17, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-0734 Lower Tribunal No. 14-15991
________________
R.V., the father,
Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria I. Sampedro-Iglesia, Judge.
R.V., the father, in proper person.
Law Office of Richard F. Joyce, P.A., and Richard F. Joyce; Lucia C. Pineiro Esq. & Associates, P.A., and Lucia C. Pineiro, for J.A., the mother; Karla Perkins, for Department of Children and Families, for appellees.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER, and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We grant appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Jimenez v.
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 669 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA
1996).
Further, upon consideration of the initial brief, and finding no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated, the order below is summarily affirmed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). See Soro v. Soro, 145
So. 3d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Fla. Detroit Diesel v. Nathai, 28 So. 3d 182 (Fla.
1st DCA 2010) (“[W]e conclude that the appellants’ initial brief fails to demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal and we therefore summarily affirm the order without the need for an answer brief.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nuris Jimenez v. The Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 669 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Fla. Detroit Diesel & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Yaadram Nathai, 28 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 145 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Soro v. Soro, 145 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)