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

O.I. v. Department of Children & Families789 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) · 4D00-2918

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2001-07-05
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father

Certiorari / writ granted Paternity testing order entered on the court's own motion at a status hearing quashed because the father had no notice testing would be addressed.

Issues
Notice & service of process, Paternity & who is a parent, Certiorari: departure from the essential requirements of law
Law cited
§ 39.407(14) (now § 39.407(15))

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

On CourtListener
PER CURIAM.

The Department of Children and Families filed a petition to terminate O.I.’s parental rights.1 At a status/advisory hearing, the trial court on its own motion ordered 0.1. to submit to paternity testing. 0.1. filed an appeal from that order, which we treat as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Allen, 717 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

While section 39.407(14), Florida Statutes (2000), allows the court to order such testing, that section provides that “[t]he order may be made only upon good cause shown and pursuant to notice and procedures as set forth by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.” The record does nqt contain the notice of hearing, but the Department does not dispute O.I.’s claim that he had no notice that the subject of testing would be discussed at the status/advisory hearing. The lack of sufficient notice requires that the order be quashed. See F.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 758 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

We do not reach the question of whether good cause was shown in this case. If testing is considered again at a properly noticed hearing, the determination of good cause will have to be made anew.

GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

. The petition was later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

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