Young v. Riley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young v. Riley

522 So. 2d 988, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 765, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1246, 1988 WL 27807

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1988

DocketNo. BT-204

StatusPublished

This text of 522 So. 2d 988 (Young v. Riley) 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

Young v. Riley, 522 So. 2d 988, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 765, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1246, 1988 WL 27807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals that portion of the trial court’s child support modification order [989]*989directing her to remove her child from her Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant and not to reapply for welfare for that child without prior permission of the court. Without making a determination as to whether a circuit court may rule upon questions of AFDC eligibility requirements, we strike the challenged portion of the order in the instant case on the grounds that the question of AFDC eligibility was not an issue before the circuit court and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which is empowered to administer the AFDC program, was not a party to the proceedings below. Therefore, paragraph l.(f) of the order on appeal is hereby stricken.

BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

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

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellant appeals that portion of the trial court’s child support modification order [989]*989directing her to remove her child from her Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant and not to reapply for welfare for that child without prior permission of the court. Without making a determination as to whether a circuit court may rule upon questions of AFDC eligibility requirements, we strike the challenged portion of the order in the instant case on the grounds that the question of AFDC eligibility was not an issue before the circuit court and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which is empowered to administer the AFDC program, was not a party to the proceedings below. Therefore, paragraph l.(f) of the order on appeal is hereby stricken.

BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 988, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 765, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1246, 1988 WL 27807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-riley-fladistctapp-1988.