Habie v. Habie

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Habie v. Habie

614 So. 2d 1116, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12931, 1992 WL 342019

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 25, 1992

DocketNo. 92-2608

StatusPublished

This text of 614 So. 2d 1116 (Habie v. Habie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Habie v. Habie, 614 So. 2d 1116, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12931, 1992 WL 342019 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

GUNTHER, Judge.

Although we deny the petition for writ of certiorari on the grounds of mootness, we note the peculiar circumstances of this case and acknowledge that they may form the basis of proper issues on plenary appeal. In particular, the guardian ad litem’s ex parte application to the trial court for appointment of his own brother, a psychologist residing in Pennsylvania, to assist in evaluating the living situation of the children located in Guatemala, and the petitioner’s contention that the ex parte application was made after the guardian and his brother had completed their evaluation of the children, if true, are questionable events which may give rise to reversible error.

DENIED.

ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

GUNTHER, Judge.

Although we deny the petition for writ of certiorari on the grounds of mootness, we note the peculiar circumstances of this case and acknowledge that they may form the basis of proper issues on plenary appeal. In particular, the guardian ad litem’s ex parte application to the trial court for appointment of his own brother, a psychologist residing in Pennsylvania, to assist in evaluating the living situation of the children located in Guatemala, and the petitioner’s contention that the ex parte application was made after the guardian and his brother had completed their evaluation of the children, if true, are questionable events which may give rise to reversible error.

DENIED.

ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 1116, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12931, 1992 WL 342019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/habie-v-habie-fladistctapp-1992.