G.S. AND R.S., PATERNAL GRANDPARENTS OF B.S., ETC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Paternal grandparents appealed the denial of their adoption petition for their granddaughter and the grant of a competing adoption petition by the child's maternal aunt and uncle. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowance of counsel withdrawal or denial of the motion for continuance.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the attorney's withdrawal or denying the motion for continuance. An attorney has the right to withdraw from representation in a civil case upon due notice and court approval, which should be rarely withheld. The denial of the continuance motion was not an abuse of discretion given the appellants' apparent desire for self-representation and their failure to timely seek a continuance before the established hearing date.
[1] An attorney may withdraw from representation upon due notice to the client and approval of the trial court, which should be rarely withheld unless it interferes with the…
[2] A trial court's decision on a motion for a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
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“We hold that in a civil case any attorney of record has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and to withdraw as an attorney of record upon due notice to his client and approval of the trial court. Approval by the trial court should be rarely withheld and then only upon a determination that to grant said request would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court.”
Establishes the legal standard for attorney withdrawal in civil cases and the trial court's wide discretion to approve such withdrawal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe paternal grandparents (G.S. and R.S.) sought to adopt their granddaughter. Their attorney moved to withdraw, advising the court that he had lost c…
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 Attorney Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
G.S. and R.S. appeal an order denying their petition for adoption of their granddaughter and a final judgment of adoption granting the petition of the child’s maternal aunt and uncle.
The Appellants complain that the trial court improperly granted their attorney’s request to withdraw from representation and denied their pro se motion to continue the adoption hearing so that they could hire new counsel.
The Appellants’ attorney moved to withdraw advising the court that he had lost' control of his clients after informing them that they would not prevail. Prior to the motion, and while the attorney was still counsel of record, the Appellants filed a 150-page pro se adoption petition. Not surprisingly, the trial court allowed the withdrawal. See Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479, 486 (Fla. 1971) (“We hold that in a civil case any attorney of record has the right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and to withdraw as an attorney of record upon due notice to his client and approval of the trial court. Approval by the trial court should be rarely withheld and then only upon a determination that to grant said request would interfere with the efficient and proper functioning of the court.”)
The motion for continuance was not made until the final hearing when all of the witnesses for the opposing side were present including one from out of state. Although only six days separated the order allowing withdrawal of the attorney and the final hearing, much more time was available to them to seek replacement counsel when they began the process of preparing their lengthy adoption petitions. Additionally, the record does not indicate any contact with either the court or opposing counsel by the Appellants seeking a continuance before the previously established time for the final hearing. A trial court’s decision on a motion for continuance is reviewed on appeal under a standard of abuse of discretion. See Fleming v. Fleming, 710 So. 2d 601, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We find no abuse in this record which reflects the Appellants’ desire for self-representation which has continued through this appeal.
The final judgment of adoption is AFFIRMED.
HARRIS, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Higgins v. Higgins, 351 So. 3d 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…ich required proceeding with the hearing, and the requested postponement would not have prejudiced [the] husband."). Nor is this a case where multiple witnesses were at the courthouse ready to testify that day. Cf. G.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam., 828 So. 2d 392, 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ("The motion for continuance was not made until the final hearing when all of the witnesses for the opposing side were present including one from out of state."). Accordingly, the Former Wife's motion for continuance should…
Authorities Cited
- Fleming v. Fleming, 710 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Fisher v. State, 248 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1971)