A.A.F., THE FATHER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND MR. AND MRS. L., 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.
A putative father who failed to register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry was not entitled to notice of termination of parental rights proceedings and cannot raise a constitutional challenge to the registry statute for the first time on appeal.
A putative father who did not register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry pursuant to section 63.054 is not entitled to notice of termination of parental rights proceedings.
[1] A putative father who fails to register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry is not entitled to notice of termination of parental rights proceedings under section 6…
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 intelligenceA child was born in April 2014, removed from the mother in July 2014, and a final judgment of termination was entered in January 2016. The putative fa…
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 As-Applied Constitutional Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, a putative father,1 challenges the denial of his motion to intervene and motion for relief from a final judgment of termination of parental rights, claiming he had no notice of the proceedings. Because he did not register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry pursuant to section 63.054, Florida Statutes (2016), he was not entitled to notice. See § 68.088(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). The final judgment of termination concluded that there was no legal father, and that the appellee had made a diligent search for a father, including a search of the Putative Fathers Registry. Appellant, in seeking to intervene post-judgment and in seeking relief from judgment, did not raise the constitutional challenge to the statute that he raises on appeal—an as-applied challenge to the registry and notice provisions of the statute. He cannot raise such a challenge for the first time on appeal. Trush-in v. State, 425 So.2d 1126, 1129-30 (Fla. 1982). His procedural arguments were likewise not preserved in the trial court.
Affirmed.
Warner, Gross and May, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deonta Howell v. Hickman, 275 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)