D.Z. v. Department of Children & Family Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.Z. v. Department of Children & Family Services

878 So. 2d 482, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11343, 2004 WL 1698071

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 30, 2004·No. No. 2D03-4375·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

D.Z. and D.P. (the Relatives), the maternal great-grandfather and the maternal grandmother, respectively, of D.A.G. and T.G., seek review of the trial court’s nonfi-nal order denying their motion for visitation. We do not have jurisdiction to review this nonfinal order as an interlocutory appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3). However, we elect to treat the Relatives’ [483] timely filed notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c). We deny the petition. See Sullivan v. Sapp, 866 So.2d 28 (Fla.2004); A.D. v. KS. (In re S.D.), 869 So.2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA2004).

Petition denied.

DAVIS, CANADY, and WALLACE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

D.Z. and D.P. (the Relatives), the maternal great-grandfather and the maternal grandmother, respectively, of D.A.G. and T.G., seek review of the trial court’s nonfi-nal order denying their motion for visitation. We do not have jurisdiction to review this nonfinal order as an interlocutory appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3). However, we elect to treat the Relatives’ [483] timely filed notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c). We deny the petition. See Sullivan v. Sapp, 866 So.2d 28 (Fla.2004); A.D. v. KS. (In re S.D.), 869 So.2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA2004).

Petition denied.

DAVIS, CANADY, and WALLACE, JJ., concur.

D.Z. v. Department of Children & Family Services, 878 So. 2d 482, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 11343, 2004 WL 1698071 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

878 So. 2d 482 (D.Z. v. Department of Children & Family Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related