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

R.V. v. Department of Children & Families259 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) · 3D18-0734

Court
3rd DCA
Decided
2018-10-17
Court's PDF On CourtListener
       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. 

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