T.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

Supreme Court of Florida

T.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families

930 So. 2d 611, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 304, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 807, 2006 WL 1284870

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 2006

DocketNo. SC06-740

StatusPublished

This text of 930 So. 2d 611 (T.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

T.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 930 So. 2d 611, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 304, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 807, 2006 WL 1284870 (Fla. 2006).

Pincite

Opinions

The Petitioners have filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, which has been treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Frankel v. Spainhour, 159 Fla. 416, 31 So.2d 535, 540 (1947) (stating that mandamus is available to compel vacation of an order entered without jurisdiction); State v. Wright, 107 Fla. 178, 145 So. 598, 601 (1932) (same). The petition is hereby denied. The order of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, dated March 27, 2006, granting the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Respondents, I.B. and D.B., in that court clearly addressed only the issue [612]*612of adoptive placement, and does not preclude the trial court from proceeding in accordance with chapters 39 and 63, Florida Statutes (2005).

Petitioners’ request for a writ of habeas corpus prohibiting an alleged unlawful confinement of the child, T.A.T., is hereby denied.

Respondents I.B. and D.B.’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, C.J., concurs with an opinion.

QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.

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

The Petitioners have filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, which has been treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Frankel v. Spainhour, 159 Fla. 416, 31 So.2d 535, 540 (1947) (stating that mandamus is available to compel vacation of an order entered without jurisdiction); State v. Wright, 107 Fla. 178, 145 So. 598, 601 (1932) (same). The petition is hereby denied. The order of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, dated March 27, 2006, granting the petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Respondents, I.B. and D.B., in that court clearly addressed only the issue [612]*612of adoptive placement, and does not preclude the trial court from proceeding in accordance with chapters 39 and 63, Florida Statutes (2005).