K. C. Mother of P.C., Minor Child v. Department of Children and Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

K. C. Mother of P.C., Minor Child v. Department of Children and Families

220 So. 3d 579, 2017 WL 2871017, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 6, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D17-1902

StatusPublished

This text of 220 So. 3d 579 (K. C. Mother of P.C., Minor Child v. Department of Children and Families) 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

K. C. Mother of P.C., Minor Child v. Department of Children and Families, 220 So. 3d 579, 2017 WL 2871017, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Mother timely sought review by appeal of a post-disposition dependency order that granted a motion to change the permanency goal to permanent guardianship, placed the child in permanent guard *580 ianship, terminated protective supervision, and directed the filing of a modified case plan. The order is not final because judicial labor remains to be done to achieve permanency for the dependent child. See § 39.603(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 189 So.3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016); T.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Although the order stated that the modified case plan shall be accepted and adopted by the court upon filing, a non-final order may not become final at some future date upon the happening of an event specified in the order. Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Pursuant to M.M., the appeal was treated as invoking the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, and the Mother was directed to file a petition.

Having considered the petition for writ of certiorari, the matter is hereby DISMISSED. Eutsay v. State, 103 So.3d 181, 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“If petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction and will enter an order dismissing the petition.”); Md. Cas. Co. v. Century Constr. Corp., 656 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding preliminary post-judgment order is not reviewable where it will culminate in a subsequent order granting or denying the relief requested and thereby offering the possibility of relief on review from the later order). The dismissal is without prejudice to the Mother’s right to seek review upon entry of a final order modifying the permanency goal to permanent guardianship.

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Mother timely sought review by appeal of a post-disposition dependency order that granted a motion to change the permanency goal to permanent guardianship, placed the child in permanent guard *580 ianship, terminated protective supervision, and directed the filing of a modified case plan. The order is not final because judicial labor remains to be done to achieve permanency for the dependent child. See § 39.603(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); M.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 189 So.3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016); T.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 736 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Although the order stated that the modified case plan shall be accepted and adopted by the court upon filing, a non-final order may not become final at some future date upon the happening of an event specified in the order. Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Pursuant to M.M., the appeal was treated as invoking the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction, and the Mother was directed to file a petition.

Having considered the petition for writ of certiorari, the matter is hereby DISMISSED. Eutsay v. State, 103 So.3d 181, 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So.2d 153, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“If petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction and will enter an order dismissing the petition.”); Md. Cas. Co. v. Century Constr. Corp., 656 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding preliminary post-judgment order is not reviewable where it will culminate in a subsequent order granting or denying the relief requested and thereby offering the possibility of relief on review from the later order). The dismissal is without prejudice to the Mother’s right to seek review upon entry of a final order modifying the permanency goal to permanent guardianship.

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 So. 3d 579, 2017 WL 2871017, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-c-mother-of-pc-minor-child-v-department-of-children-and-families-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack