O.I. v. Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O.I. v. Department of Children & Families

789 So. 2d 476, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9159, 2001 WL 747285

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2001

DocketNo. 4D00-2918

StatusPublished

This text of 789 So. 2d 476 (O.I. 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

O.I. v. Department of Children & Families, 789 So. 2d 476, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9159, 2001 WL 747285 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Children and Families filed a petition to terminate O.I.’s parental rights.¹ At a status/advisory hearing, the trial court on its own motion ordered 0.1. to submit to paternity testing. 0.1. filed an appeal from that order, which we treat as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Allen, 717 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

While section 39.407(14), Florida Statutes (2000), allows the court to order such testing, that section provides that “[t]he order may be made only upon good cause shown and pursuant to notice and procedures as set forth by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.” The record does nqt contain the notice of hearing, but the Department does not dispute O.I.’s claim that he had no notice that the subject of testing would be discussed at the status/advisory hearing. The lack of sufficient notice requires that the order be quashed. See F.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 758 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

We do not reach the question of whether good cause was shown in this case. If testing is considered again at a properly noticed hearing, the determination of good cause will have to be made anew.

GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Children and Families filed a petition to terminate O.I.’s parental rights.¹ At a status/advisory hearing, the trial court on its own motion ordered 0.1. to submit to paternity testing. 0.1. filed an appeal from that order, which we treat as a petition for writ of certiorari. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Allen, 717 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

While section 39.407(14), Florida Statutes (2000), allows the court to order such testing, that section provides that “[t]he order may be made only upon good cause shown and pursuant to notice and procedures as set forth by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.” The record does nqt contain the notice of hearing, but the Department does not dispute O.I.’s claim that he had no notice that the subject of testing would be discussed at the status/advisory hearing. The lack of sufficient notice requires that the order be quashed. See F.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 758 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

We do not reach the question of whether good cause was shown in this case. If testing is considered again at a properly noticed hearing, the determination of good cause will have to be made anew.

GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 476, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9159, 2001 WL 747285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oi-v-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack