CHARLES MACDONALD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND CAREN MACDONALD, 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.
Charles MacDonald appealed a provision in a shelter review order prohibiting contact between his paramour and his minor son. The court affirmed the order, finding that MacDonald failed to preserve the issue for appellate review because he did not object to the no-contact provision at the trial court level.
MacDonald failed to preserve the issue for appellate review because he did not make a contemporaneous objection to the no-contact order at the trial court level. Absent a fundamental error, a party must object and obtain a ruling from the trial court to preserve an issue for appellate review.
[1] A party must object and obtain a ruling from the trial court to preserve an issue for appellate review, absent a fundamental error.
[2] An issue is preserved for appellate review only if it is presented to the lower court with the specific legal argument to be argued on appeal.
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“absent a fundamental error, a party must object and obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review”
States the foundational rule for appellate preservation of issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a shelter review hearing, the trial court granted the Department of Children and Families' motion for a no-contact order prohibiting MacDonald's pa…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Charles MacDonald timely appeals a provision in an order on shelter review prohibiting any contact between his paramour and his minor son. We affirm because we find that MacDonald failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.
A discussion between counsel, MacDonald, and the court at the shelter review hearing demonstrates that this issue has not been preserved:
Department: The next issue just given the fact that you’ve ruled that the child may return to the dad and to Maryland immediately, that the dad to be directed that no contact whatsoever, direct or indirect, obviously, with [the paramour].
Court: That motion is granted without argument or request. The recommendation is granted without argument.
Defense Counsel: That’s fíne.
Court: And when I say no contact, and I’m going to enter a written order on that, that’s no contact directly, indirectly, no phone calls, no cards, nothing.
Father: There hasn’t been, your Hon-or. Court: That’s the order of the court, What’s the next issue?
(Emphasis added). Both the father’s trial counsel, and the father, spoke up and gave no indication that they objected to the trial court’s no contact order. It is well-settled that, absent a fundamental error, a party must object and obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review. See Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (and cases cited therein); Lacey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(“[I]n order to be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985)); Ramos v. State, 798 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (en banc) (party alleging error must make contemporaneous ob jection with sufficient specificity “to apprise the trial court of the putative error”) (quoting Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla.1982)).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alyssabeth Klein v. Est. of Eleanor H. Klein, 295 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
-
Cary Portner v. Gil Koppel and Aleksandra Koppel, 382 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…urt did not issue a ruling before appellant and the former counsel testified. It is clear that “a party must object and obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review.” MacDonald v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 855 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Since appellant did not obtain a ruling, this issue is waived for purposes of appeal. Further, the trial court would not have abused its discretion in permitting the testimony. Section 90.507, Florida Statutes (2022), s…
-
Payton Latario Rolle v. Viergena Katie Joseph (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…multiple instances of harassment 1 To the extent the objection to some of the messages was based on hearsay, the trial court did not rule on such objection, and the issue is therefore not preserved for review. MacDonald v. Dep't of Child. & Fams., 855 So. 2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[A]bsent a fundamental error, a party must object and obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve an issue for appellate review."). [*4] and stalking as defined by statute, we affirm. See Paylan v. Statton,…
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1982)
- Carratelli v. State, 832 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rahmah Jakouch v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Pura Ramos v. State, 798 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)