Cashion v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cashion v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

630 So. 2d 1244, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 424, 1994 WL 26837

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 1, 1994·No. No. 93-2431·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James and Caroline Cashion appeal an order dismissing their petition for termination of parental rights with prejudice. We agree with so much of the order as finds that the petition is premature, because there had been no adjudication of dependency. An adjudication of dependency is a required element for a termination of parental rights, § 39.467(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). The dismissal, however, should have been without prejudice'

We disagree with so much of the order as finds the appellants lacked standing to file the petition. The petition was verified and facially demonstrated that the appellants met the statutory test, i.e., they were “any other person who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed of them and believes that they are true.” § 39.461(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).

We modify the order by striking so much of the dismissal as holds that it is with prejudice, and strike the determination that the appellants are without standing.

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

James and Caroline Cashion appeal an order dismissing their petition for termination of parental rights with prejudice. We agree with so much of the order as finds that the petition is premature, because there had been no adjudication of dependency. An adjudication of dependency is a required element for a termination of parental rights, § 39.467(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). The dismissal, however, should have been without prejudice'

We disagree with so much of the order as finds the appellants lacked standing to file the petition. The petition was verified and facially demonstrated that the appellants met the statutory test, i.e., they were “any other person who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed of them and believes that they are true.” § 39.461(1), Fla.Stat. (1993).

We modify the order by striking so much of the dismissal as holds that it is with prejudice, and strike the determination that the appellants are without standing.

Affirmed as modified.

Cashion v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 630 So. 2d 1244, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 424, 1994 WL 26837 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

630 So. 2d 1244 (Cashion v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related