IN THE INTEREST OF T.G., A CHILD. Z.G., PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, RESPONDENTS
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.
Father's petition for certiorari challenging dependency adjudication and visitation denial is denied as to dependency and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to visitation, which was a nonfinal order that should have been challenged within thirty days.
A nonfinal order denying a father's motion for visitation in a dependency proceeding is not subject to appellate review except through common law certiorari filed within thirty days of the order.
[1] A nonfinal order in a dependency proceeding that denies a parent's motion for visitation is reviewable only by common law certiorari petition filed within thirty days of…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZ.G., the father of T.G., sought certiorari review of a trial court's order denying his motion for visitation. The visitation order was entered Novemb…
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 Non-Final, Non-Appealable Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Z.G., the father of T.G., petitions for a writ of certiorari directed at the trial court’s order of supplemental adjudication of dependency. Z.G. also petitions for cer-tiorari review of a separate order which denied Z.G.’s motion for visitation. We deny the petition as to the dependency adjudication without further comment.
*981As to the visitation issue, we dismiss that portion of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The order which denied Z.G.’s motion for visitation was rendered November 20, 2009. Although it was a nonfinal, nonappealable order as to Z.G., Z.G. could and should have sought certio-rari review within thirty days from the date of that order. See C.V v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 19 So.3d 381, 384-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that this court did not have jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order in a dependency proceeding that declined to change placement of the child and that in such a case, this court’s review is limited to that provided by common law certiorari).
We also note that the November 2009 order did not completely foreclose visitation. Instead, the trial court denied Z.G.’s motion without prejudice and specified that the Department of Children and Family Services would “have the discretion to allow [Z.G.] to have 1-hour per week supervised visitation with [T.G.] if [Z.G.] is making efforts on his [c]ase [p]lan tasks.”
Denied in part; dismissed in part.
NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.V.-B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)