O. K.
v.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order because the appellant failed to preserve the issues for appeal by not filing a motion for rehearing. Arguments related to a separate order were also rejected as that order was subject to a prior dismissed appeal.
No, the Father did not preserve the issues related to the first order by failing to file a motion for rehearing. The issues related to the second order were not properly before this court as that order was subject to a prior dismissed appeal.
[1] Issues in an appeal must be preserved by motion for rehearing or by bringing the claimed deficiency to the trial court's attention at a time when it could have been corre…
[2] Orders rendered after a final judgment that adjudicate rights not adjudicated in the original final judgment are separate and distinct orders requiring their own appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court's order, [a]ppellant needed to preserve these issues 'by a motion for rehearing or . . . [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected.'”
Establishes the requirement for preserving issues for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Father appealed two orders from the trial court: an Amended Order on Permanency Judicial Review and an Order Denying Father's Motion to Compel Chi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reunification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. O.K. (the Father) appeals the trial court's April 18, 2022, Amended Order on Permanency Judicial Review, Order on Father's Motion for Reunification and Order Releasing Supervision and Relinquishing Jurisdiction. Because the Father did not preserve the issues raised in his briefs by filing a motion for rehearing, we affirm the trial court's April
18, 2022, order. See A.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 118 So. 3d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[I]f statutory deficiencies existed in the trial court's order, [a]ppellant needed to preserve these issues 'by a motion for rehearing or . . . [by otherwise bringing] the claimed deficiency to the attention of the trial court at a point when it could have been corrected.' " (third alteration in original) (quoting D.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 54 So. 3d 632, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))).
The Father also raises in this appeal issues related to the trial court's July 6, 2022, Order Denying Father's Motion to Compel Child's Return to Florida and Motion for Rehearing (July 6, 2022, Order).
Because the July 6, 2022, Order was subject to appeal in case number 2D22-2263, which was dismissed by this court, we reject the Father's arguments related to that order. See Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla. 1976) (holding that orders rendered after judgment that adjudicates rights that were not adjudicated in the original final judgment are separate final and distinct orders that require their own appeal); see also M.C.G. v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 927 So. 2d 224, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (affirming a final agency order "[b]ased on the determination made in the appellants' case that we previously considered"); Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. City of Miami, 485 So. 2d 856, 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (affirming final order where the issues raised in the current appeal had already been decided by the appellate court in two prior appeals).
Affirmed. LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Sampson, 336 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1976)
- A.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 118 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)