DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, PETITIONER,
v.
C.G., A CHILD, RESPONDENT
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.
HRS sought certiorari review of a trial court order placing a dependent child at County Acres, contending the order violated the agency's statutory authority to determine placement. The court held that while certiorari was the wrong procedural vehicle, it would treat the untimely certiorari petition as a notice of appeal under Florida precedent and proceed with plenary review.
The court treated the untimely certiorari petition as a notice of appeal pursuant to Johnson v. Citizens State Bank and proceeded with plenary appellate review, directing the parties to file briefs and prepare records according to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[1] An appellate court has jurisdiction to review a cause even though the form of appellate relief is mischaracterized.
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari may be treated as a notice of appeal when the underlying order is appropriate for plenary appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an appellate court has jurisdiction to review a cause even though the form of appellate relief is mischaracterized”
Florida Supreme Court rule allowing conversion of improperly styled petitions to notices of appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court adjudicated a child dependent and ordered placement at County Acres in Brevard County. HRS, as the agency granted legal custody, sought …
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 Child Dependency Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) seeks certiorari review of a trial court order adjudicating a child dependent and ordering that he “shall be placed in the first available opening at County Acres.” HRS contends the order contravenes our holding in In the Interest of K.A.B., 483 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), wherein we deleted that portion of a trial court order directing that a dependent child be placed at County Acres in Brevard County. Our holding in that case was based upon the wording of section 39.41(3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), which expressly granted to HRS, as an agency granting legal custody, the right to determine where and with whom the dependent child should live. The present reference is section 39.41(5) (Supp.1988).
Our problem with the instant petition concerns the fact that certiorari is not the appropriate remedy; plenary appeal is available as it was in K.A.B. Therefore, certiorari may not be utilized. See, e.g., Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The difficulty in seeking a plenary appeal in the instant case is that the thirty-day period within which to file a notice of appeal in the lower court has expired. The Florida Supreme Court has held that “an appellate court has jurisdiction to review a cause even though the form of appellate relief is mischaracterized.” Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 537 So. 2d 96 (Fla.1989) (timely filing of a notice of appeal with the circuit court clerk legally effective to vest jurisdiction in the district court so as to treat notice as petition for writ of certiorari). See also Jones v. Office of the Sheriff, 541 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1989) (non-final appeal treated as petition for certiorari); Stieglitz v. City Commission, City of South Miami, 537 So. 2d 98 (Fla.1989) (non-final appeal treated as petition for certiorari). The instant petition is a “reverse Johnson case.” HRS filed its petition for writ of certiorari in this court, whereas the appropriate remedy was to file a timely notice of appeal in the circuit court.
In Skinner v. Skinner, 541 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review pending, Case No. 74149, the court was confronted with a certiorari petition for review of an order appropriate for an interlocutory appeal. The court dismissed the petition and declined to treat it as a direct appeal, concluding that it was bound by Lampkin-Asam v. District Court of Appeal, 364 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1978), and that the later decision in Johnson did not compel a contrary decision.
We disagree with the majority opinion in Skinner and agree with Judge Anstead’s dissent, wherein he noted that the rule providing for filing the notice of appeal in the trial court was intended “chiefly as a means of convenience for the parties and the trial court.” We also note that in footnote two of Johnson the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged, with no indication of disapproval, that “District courts have also considered as notices of appeal, erroneously titled petitions for writs of certiorari. See e.g., Pearce v. Parsons, 414 So. 2d 296, n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).” In Pearce a petition for certiorari was treated as a plenary appeal without discussion of the failure to properly file a notice of appeal in.the lower court.1
Accordingly, pursuant to Johnson and the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(b) and (c), we treat the instant petition for certiorari as a notice of appeal, and direct the parties hereto to file briefs and prepare a record in accordance with ’the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure from the date of this opinion.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . See also State v. Johnson, 306 So. 2d 102 (Fla.1974); City Ad Associates, Inc. v. City of Miami, 557 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Thomson, Bohrer, Werth & Razook v. Multi Restaurant Concepts, Inc., 15 F.L.W. 211 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 16, 1990); Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c) committee notes (1977) ("Under this rule a petition for a writ of certiorari should be treated as a notice of appeal, if timely.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. The Honorable Alban Brooke of the Cir. Court of the Fourth Jud. Cir. In & For Duval Cnty., 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…econd amended emergency petition for common law certiorari on the basis that petitioners have already appealed from the orders, thus showing that they have an adequate legal remedy by appeal. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In both instances, respondents urge that this court should treat the consolidated petitions as notices of appeal and order compliance with the appropriate provisions of the Rules of Appellate Procedure pursuant to Skinner v. Ski…
-
Santmyer v. Orange Paving & Constr. Co., 589 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…s a viable review route, although in this case it duplicates the appeal. We disagree. Certiorari is not appropriate where an adequate remedy exists by way of appeal from the final judgment. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Carroll Contracting v. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Case law interpreting rule 1.070(j) involves appeals; none involves certiorari revi…
-
In the Interest of B.C. v. Honorable J. Lewis Hall, Jr., 610 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…he instant petition for writ of certio-rari as a notice of appeal and as the initial brief. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Brooke, 573 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. C.G., 556 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Turning to the merits, we agree with the Department’s position that section 43.28, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court in In the Interest of D.B., 385 So. 2d 83 (Fla.1980), places on the county the burden of payment for…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- R.S. Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 537 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1989)
- Lampkin-Asam v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 364 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1978)
- Doyle Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc., 541 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- State v. Zebedee Johnson, Jr., 306 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1974)
- In the Interest of K.A.B. v. Hyson, 483 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Pearce v. Honorable Broward N. Parsons, 414 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Skinner v. Skinner, 541 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- City AD Assocs., Inc. v. The City OF Miami, 557 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Stieglitz v. City Comm'n, 537 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1989)