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

A.A.F. v. Department of Children & Families211 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) · 4D16-2970

Court
4th DCA
Decided
2017-02-01
Case
TPR
Appellant
Father

Affirmed Unregistered putative father was not entitled to notice; denial of intervention and relief from termination judgment affirmed, constitutional claim unpreserved.

Issues
Notice & service of process, Paternity & who is a parent, Preservation & fundamental error, Post-judgment relief
Law cited
§ 63.054

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

On CourtListener
Per Curiam.

Appellant, a putative father,1 challenges the denial of his motion to intervene and motion for relief from a final judgment of termination of parental rights, claiming he had no notice of the proceedings. Because he did not register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry pursuant to section 63.054, Florida Statutes (2016), he was not entitled to notice. See § 68.088(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). The final judgment of termination concluded that there was no legal father, and that the appellee had made a diligent search for a father, including a search of the Putative Fathers Registry. Appellant, in seeking to intervene post-judgment and in seeking relief from judgment, did not raise the constitutional challenge to the statute that he raises on appeal—an as-applied challenge to the registry and notice provisions of the statute. He cannot raise such a challenge for the first time on appeal. Trush-in v. State, 425 So.2d 1126, 1129-30 (Fla. 1982). His procedural arguments were likewise not preserved in the trial court.

Affirmed.

Warner, Gross and May, JJ., concur.

. Appellant’s paternity of the subject child has never been established. The child was born in April 2014, removed from the mother in July 2014, and a final judgment of termination was entered in January 2016. Appellant sought to intervene in May 2016.

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