A.C. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, R.A., minor child and Adoptive Parents of R.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.C. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, R.A., minor child and Adoptive Parents of R.A.

181 So. 3d 574, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 189

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 6, 2016·No. 4D15-4380·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of two trial court orders, one denying her emergency motion to stay the adoption of A.R., the other denying her motion to vacate the order terminating her parental rights as to A.R. We affirm the order denying the motion to stay the adoption, without further comment. We reverse the order denying the motion to vacate the order of terminationof parental rights “based on lack of standing.” See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.270; see also Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief’) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 903 So.2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)). We express no opinion as to whether any color-able entitlement to relief under rule 8.270 is shown.

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of two trial court orders, one denying her emergency motion to stay the adoption of A.R., the other denying her motion to vacate the order terminating her parental rights as to A.R. We affirm the order denying the motion to stay the adoption, without further comment. We reverse the order denying the motion to vacate the order of terminationof parental rights “based on lack of standing.” See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.270; see also Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief’) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 903 So.2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)). We express no opinion as to whether any color-able entitlement to relief under rule 8.270 is shown.

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

A.C. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, R.A., minor child and Adoptive Parents of R.A., 181 So. 3d 574, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 189 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

181 So. 3d 574 (A.C. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, R.A., minor child and Adoptive Parents of R.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related