R.H. AND B.H., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 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.
Grandparents R.H. and B.H. appealed an order removing their granddaughter G.O. from their care and placing her in the temporary legal custody of her paternal aunt and uncle. The Florida appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the grandparents lacked standing because they were only "participants" rather than "parties" in the underlying dependency proceeding.
No. Grandparents lack standing to appeal because they were not parties to the proceedings below. Section 39.815(1) limits appeal rights after termination of parental rights to children, parents, guardians ad litem, parties to the proceeding who are affected by the order, and the department. Since the grandparents were only participants, not parties as defined in section 39.01(50), they cannot bring an appeal.
[1] Individuals who were not parties to a termination of parental rights proceeding lack standing to appeal orders entered in that proceeding.
[2] In dependency proceedings, only parties to the proceeding, the child, a parent or guardian ad litem, or the department may appeal a court order.
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“the grandparents lack standing to challenge the order on appeal”
The court's statement of its holding regarding standing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceG.O., a young child, had resided with her grandparents R.H. and B.H. for nearly three years with both DCF and court approval. After both of G.O.'s par…
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 Legal Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEPHERD, J.
Appellants, R.H. and B.H., seek to appeal an order modifying placement — pursuant to section 39.812, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.345(a) — of G.O., their granddaughter, who thus far has resided with R.H. and B.H. with both Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) and court sanction for nearly all three short years of G.O.’s life. The order places G.O. in the temporary legal custody of her paternal aunt and uncle, where G.O.’s older brother, J.O., resides. The parental rights of both the father and the mother of these siblings have been terminated. The respective final judgments of termination of parental rights for each parent placed the children in DCF custody for the purpose of interim management of their needs and care.
We find the grandparents lack standing to challenge the order on appeal.
This proceeding began as a dependency proceeding to adjudicate both G.O. and J.O. dependent as to both their mother, M.R., and father, J.O., which ultimately resulted in the termination of both parents’ rights to their children for the parents’ failure to comply with the requirements of the dependency. G.O.’s grandparents, R.H. and B.H., were not parties to the proceeding below. See § 39.01(50), Fla. Stat. (2007) (limiting the definition of a “party” under Chapter 39 to “the parent or parents of the child, the petitioner, the department, the guardian ad litem or the representative of the guardian ad litem program when the program has been appointed, and the child”).
Section 39.815(1), Florida Statutes (2007), limits appeals after the termination of parental rights to “[a]ny child, any parent or guardian ad litem of any child, any other party to the proceeding who is affected by an order of the court, or the department....” Appellants R.H. and B.H. have acknowledged their lack of party status during proceedings below through numerous filings identifying themselves as “participants.”1 Our sister court recently reiterated in C.M. & F.M. v. Department of Children & Families, 981 So. 2d 1272, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), that in termination of parental rights proceeding, individuals who “were not parties to the proceedings below,” lack standing to bring an appeal. See also D.M. v. State, Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 980 So. 2d 498, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (stating that where D.M. acknowledged she was a “participant” rather than a “party” in the proceeding on appeal, D.M. lacked standing to bring appeal).
In the case before us, because the grandparents were participants in and not parties to the proceedings below, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.
Appeal dismissed.
. See K.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 978 So. 2d 211, 212 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008):
Based on our review of the record, it would appear that the grandmother was K.M.’s "legal custodian" in the sense that she was granted "temporary legal custody” of K.M. pursuant to the dependency disposition option listed in section 39.521(3)(c), which reads, in pertinent part: If no fit parent is willing or available to assume care and custody of the child, [the court may] place the child in the temporary legal custody of an adult relative or other adult approved by the court who is willing to care for the child, under the protective supervision of the department.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.D. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & the Guardian Ad Litem Program, 201 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…roceeding affected by an order of the lower tribunal” to appeal the final judgment. (Emphasis added). “[I]ndividuals who were ‘not parties to the proceedings below,’ lack standing to bring an appeal.” [*14] R.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 994 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 981 So. 2d 1272, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). The Appellant was not affected by the order of the lower tribunal terminating the Mother’s parental rights. Although the Appellant wa…
Authorities Cited
- C.M. and F.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 981 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- In the Interest of K.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 978 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)