BERNARD COOPER, ET AL.

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D23-2253 Lower Tribunal Nos. 23-029CF, DCF-23-195-FO Bernard Cooper, et al., Appellants, vs. Department of Children and Families, Appellee. An Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Children and Families. Kawel PLLC and Andrew Paul Kawel; Law Offices of Dayna Maeder, LLC, and Dayna Maeder (Orlando); Community Law for Families and Children, PLLC, and Valentina Villalobos (Tampa), for appellants. Rosemarie Rinaldi, Assistant Regional Legal Counsel, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Appellants Bernard Cooper and Adriana Alvarez appeal from a November 20, 2023, final order issued by the Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), which approved K.H.’s, the petitioner below, application to adopt L.C. The Department now moves to dismiss the appeal, arguing the appeal is moot because the trial court entered a final judgment of adoption, and L.C. has been adopted. Notably, Appellants concede in their Response to the Department’s Motion to Dismiss that they “were not considered parties” in this action. “[S]tanding to seek appellate review of administrative action is governed by express statutory law.” Stolar v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 298 So. 3d 1205, 1206- 07 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Only “[a] party who is adversely affected by final agency action is entitled to judicial review.” § 120.68(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added). Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the term “party” is specifically defined to include:¹) “[a] specifically named person whose substantial interests are being determined in the proceeding;”²) “[a] person . . . entitled [by law] to participate in whole or in part in the proceeding, or whose substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action, and who makes an appearance as a party;” 3) “[a] person . . . allowed by the agency to intervene or participate in the proceeding as a party;” and 4) “[a]

county representative . . . or unit funded and authorized . . . to represent [the county’s consumers].” § 120.52(13)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. (2023). In this case, Appellants were not named as parties to K.H.’s petition to adopt, did not appear as a party, and did not receive permission from the Department to intervene¹ or participate in the proceeding as a party. Because Appellants do not fit within any of the specifically delineated definitions of the term “party” under the Administrative Procedure Act, they lack standing to seek appellate review of the subject order. Id. Thus, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.² Dismissed.