S.S., THE FATHER, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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.
A Florida appellate court granted a father's petition for writ of prohibition, finding that Florida lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act because the child had never lived in Florida and was brought there only due to a Department of Children and Families clerical error.
Florida does not have subject matter jurisdiction over T.S. because New York is the child's home state, T.S. had never been in Florida prior to the erroneous removal, and there is no evidence that New York has declined to exercise jurisdiction or that Florida is the more appropriate forum.
[1] A state court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act when the child has never resided in the state and is only pr…
[2] A court may exercise jurisdiction over a child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act if no other state is the child's home state, or if another state has decli…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Florida does not have subject matter jurisdiction over T.S., his child, under the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514, Florida Statutes”
Statement of the core holding on jurisdictional authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father and mother had two children and lived in Florida, but left the state in 1994 after child sexual abuse charges were filed against the father…
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 Home State Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
We grant the father’s petition for writ of prohibition in which he asserts that Florida does not have subject matter jurisdiction over T.S., his child, under the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514, Florida Statutes (2002).
Before the birth of T.S., his parents and their two other children lived in Florida, but left the state in 1994 after child sexual abuse charges were filed against the father and dependency proceedings were initiated. The family wasn’t located until 2002, when it was discovered living in New York. T.S. was born after the family left Florida.
The father has been arrested and it appears he is now incarcerated pretrial in Florida. The children were removed from the mother in New York and are now in Florida. T.S., who had never lived in Florida, was only sent here from New York because, as a result of a mistake in the paper work filed by the department, his address was shown as “Jamaica Queens Florida.”
The father moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only as to T.S., because it was undisputed that T.S. had never been in Florida prior to being picked up in New York. The trial court denied the motion.
The Department argues that the trial court has jurisdiction under section 61.514(l)(b), Florida Statutes, which would authorize Florida to exercise jurisdiction over T.S. if New York is not the home state, or if New York has declined jurisdiction and Florida is the more appropriate forum. It is undisputed, however, that T.S. has never been in Florida prior to this and is only here because of the mistake. Florida can only have jurisdiction under these circumstances if, under section 61.514(l)(b), no other state is the home state of the child, or if another state is, it has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum.
There is nothing in this record to demonstrate that New York has declined to exercise jurisdiction, and accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, we have no alternative but to grant the writ of prohibition because Florida does not have subject matter jurisdiction over T.S. Snider v. Snider, 686 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(if the jurisdictional requirements of the UC-CJA are not met, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction).
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. Fernandez, 915 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…jurisdiction only if, under section 61.514(l)(b), no other state is the home state of the child, or if another state is, it has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum. S.S. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 851 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In this case, there is nothing in this record to demonstrate that Colombia has declined to exercise jurisdiction.…
Authorities Cited
- Snider v. Cornelia N. Snider, 686 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)