Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

Z.G. v. Department of Children & Family Services45 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) · 2D10-1100

Court
2nd DCA
Decided
2010-10-15
Case
Dependency
Appellant
Father

Certiorari / writ denied Certiorari denied as to the supplemental dependency adjudication; the visitation challenge was dismissed as untimely because certiorari was not sought within thirty days.

Issues
Dependency adjudication: sufficiency of evidence Certiorari / writ denied, Visitation & contact Dismissed, Appellate jurisdiction & timeliness Dismissed

Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.

On CourtListener
MORRIS, Judge.

Z.G., the father of T.G., petitions for a writ of certiorari directed at the trial court’s order of supplemental adjudication of dependency. Z.G. also petitions for cer-tiorari review of a separate order which denied Z.G.’s motion for visitation. We deny the petition as to the dependency adjudication without further comment.

*981As to the visitation issue, we dismiss that portion of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The order which denied Z.G.’s motion for visitation was rendered November 20, 2009. Although it was a nonfinal, nonappealable order as to Z.G., Z.G. could and should have sought certio-rari review within thirty days from the date of that order. See C.V v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 19 So.3d 381, 384-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that this court did not have jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order in a dependency proceeding that declined to change placement of the child and that in such a case, this court’s review is limited to that provided by common law certiorari).

We also note that the November 2009 order did not completely foreclose visitation. Instead, the trial court denied Z.G.’s motion without prejudice and specified that the Department of Children and Family Services would “have the discretion to allow [Z.G.] to have 1-hour per week supervised visitation with [T.G.] if [Z.G.] is making efforts on his [c]ase [p]lan tasks.”

Denied in part; dismissed in part.

NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.