BERNARD COOPER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 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.
Bernard Cooper and Adriana Alvarez appealed a Department of Children and Families order approving K.H.'s adoption application for L.C. The Department moved to dismiss the appeal arguing it was moot because the adoption was finalized. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing, finding appellants were not parties to the proceeding under Florida's Administrative Procedure Act.
The appellants lack standing to seek appellate review because they do not meet any of the statutory definitions of 'party' under Florida's Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
[1] Under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, standing to seek judicial review of final agency action is limited to persons who were named parties to the proceeding, ap…
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 intelligenceK.H. filed a petition to adopt L.C. The Department of Children and Families approved the adoption application on November 20, 2023. The trial court en…
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.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- B.Y. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 887 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004)
- Stolar v. Dep't of Health, 298 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)