K.C., MOTHER OF P.C., MINOR CHILD, 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.
Mother appealed a post-disposition dependency order changing the child's permanency goal to permanent guardianship. The court dismissed the appeal because the order was not final, as judicial labor remained to achieve permanency, and allowed Mother to seek review after a final order is entered.
The order is not final because judicial labor remains to be done to achieve permanency for the dependent child. A non-final order may not become final at a future date upon the happening of an event specified in the order. The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to seeking review upon entry of a final order.
[1] A post-disposition dependency order that grants a motion to change the permanency goal, places the child in permanent guardianship, terminates protective supervision, and…
[2] A non-final order cannot become final at a future date upon the occurrence of an event specified in the order.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 order is not final because judicial labor remains to be done to achieve permanency for the dependent child.”
Establishes the core holding that the order lacks finality due to outstanding judicial work
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA dependency case involved a minor child. The trial court issued a post-disposition order that granted a motion to change the permanency goal to perma…
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 Protective Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
The Mother timely sought review by appeal of a post-disposition dependency order that granted a motion to change the permanency goal to permanent guardianship, placed the child in permanent guard*580ianship, terminated protective supervision, and directed the filing of a modified case plan. The order is not final because judicial labor remains to be done to achieve permanency for the dependent child. See § 39.603(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 189 So.3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016); T.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Although the order stated that the modified case plan shall be accepted and adopted by the court upon filing, a non-final order may not become final at some future date upon the happening of an event specified in the order. Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Pursuant to M.M., the appeal was treated as invoking the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, and the Mother was directed to file a petition.
Having considered the petition for writ of certiorari, the matter is hereby DISMISSED. Eutsay v. State, 103 So.3d 181, 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“If petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction and will enter an order dismissing the petition.”); Md. Cas. Co. v. Century Constr. Corp., 656 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding preliminary post-judgment order is not reviewable where it will culminate in a subsequent order granting or denying the relief requested and thereby offering the possibility of relief on review from the later order). The dismissal is without prejudice to the Mother’s right to seek review upon entry of a final order modifying the permanency goal to permanent guardianship.
WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Alfonson Detroy Ponton and Reginald J. Williams v. Officer B.E. Gross, 576 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- M.M. v. Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 189 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2016)
- Md. Cas. Co. & N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Century Constr. Corp., 656 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- T.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 736 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Eutsay v. State, 103 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)