In the Interest of M.P., a child

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of M.P., a child

175 So. 3d 920, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14152, 2015 WL 5618281

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 2015

Docket2D15-2065

StatusPublished

This text of 175 So. 3d 920 (In the Interest of M.P., a child) 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

In the Interest of M.P., a child, 175 So. 3d 920, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14152, 2015 WL 5618281 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*921 PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See O.I.C.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 169 So.3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the denial of a private petition for dependency based on the ground, among others, that the child who was being eared for by an uncle did not qualify as dependent); Dep’t of Children & Families v. Dixon, 938 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding, based on a concession of error, that the “trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct an adjudicatory hearing because the children turned 18 before the date of the hearing”); In re M.C.S., 327 P.3d 360, 363 (Colo.App.2014) (dismissing a petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that “a juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction only to adjudicate children younger than eighteen” and observing that the court is “not at liberty to expand either the definition of ‘child’ or the court’s jurisdictional, reach”).

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

*921 PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See O.I.C.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 169 So.3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the denial of a private petition for dependency based on the ground, among others, that the child who was being eared for by an uncle did not qualify as dependent); Dep’t of Children & Families v. Dixon, 938 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding, based on a concession of error, that the “trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct an adjudicatory hearing because the children turned 18 before the date of the hearing”); In re M.C.S., 327 P.3d 360, 363 (Colo.App.2014) (dismissing a petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that “a juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction only to adjudicate children younger than eighteen” and observing that the court is “not at liberty to expand either the definition of ‘child’ or the court’s jurisdictional, reach”).

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 3d 920, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14152, 2015 WL 5618281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mp-a-child-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack