Affirmed. See O.I.C.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 169 So.3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the denial of a private petition for dependency based on the ground, among others, that the child who was being eared for by an uncle did not qualify as dependent); Dep’t of Children & Families v. Dixon, 938 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding, based on a concession of error, that the “trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct an adjudicatory hearing because the children turned 18 before the date of the hearing”); In re M.C.S., 327 P.3d 360, 363 (Colo.App.2014) (dismissing a petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that “a juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction only to adjudicate children younger than eighteen” and observing that the court is “not at liberty to expand either the definition of ‘child’ or the court’s jurisdictional, reach”).
In re M.P.175 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) · 2D15-2065
- Court
- 2nd DCA
- Decided
- 2015-09-25
- Case
- Dependency
- Appellant
- Child
- County
- Collier
Affirmed Denial of a private dependency petition affirmed per curiam, citing cases on relative caregivers and lack of jurisdiction once a child turns eighteen.
Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.
Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.
Not cited
No opinion in CourtListener's collection cites this case.
Cites 2 opinions in this collection
Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.
- O.I.C.L. v. Department of Children & Families 4D15-53 · 4th DCA 2015Denial of an immigrant teen's private dependency petition affirmed: his uncle was a capable caregiver, and remote or poverty-based neglect did not show dependency.
- Department of Children & Families v. Dixon 4D06-2150 · 4th DCA 2006Dependency order reversed on concession of error: the court lacked jurisdiction because the children turned 18 before the hearing, and it improperly backdated the order.