M.R.L. ex rel. A.F.L. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.R.L. ex rel. A.F.L. v. Department of Children & Families

835 So. 2d 1261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 941, 2003 WL 215062

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-3006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 835 So. 2d 1261 (M.R.L. ex rel. A.F.L. v. Department of Children & 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

M.R.L. ex rel. A.F.L. v. Department of Children & Families, 835 So. 2d 1261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 941, 2003 WL 215062 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, M.R.L., Jr., is currently serving a twenty-year sentence in a Florida prison. He appeals the denial of his request for modification of visitation of his minor child. The trial court denied appellant’s request without a hearing and without making any findings as to the effects on the child of visiting the appellant in prison. See § 61.13(2)(b) 2, Fla. Stat. (2000). Based upon the concession by the Department of Children and Families, we determine that appellant is entitled to a hearing on his request for visitation and may appear telephonically. See, e.g., Mattingley v. Mattingley, 789 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Ramos v. Steven, 816 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

We vacate the order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

ALLEN, G.J., WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, M.R.L., Jr., is currently serving a twenty-year sentence in a Florida prison. He appeals the denial of his request for modification of visitation of his minor child. The trial court denied appellant’s request without a hearing and without making any findings as to the effects on the child of visiting the appellant in prison. See § 61.13(2)(b) 2, Fla. Stat. (2000). Based upon the concession by the Department of Children and Families, we determine that appellant is entitled to a hearing on his request for visitation and may appear telephonically. See, e.g., Mattingley v. Mattingley, 789 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Ramos v. Steven, 816 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

We vacate the order and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

ALLEN, G.J., WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 So. 2d 1261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 941, 2003 WL 215062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrl-ex-rel-afl-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack