189 So. 3d 134
Fla.2016Background
- Children were found dependent as to Father (M.M.) after abuse allegations in 2013; Mother completed her case plan and children were reunified with her.
- Trial court (Miami-Dade) terminated DCF supervision and limited Father’s future visitation to the children’s discretion, while expressly retaining jurisdiction to modify orders for the children’s welfare.
- Father appealed, arguing due process violations and that the court improperly limited his contact; Third DCA treated the matter as a certiorari petition, quashing only the limitation that gave sole discretion to the children.
- The Third DCA recognized a split among district courts on whether post-dependency orders subject to future modification are appealable or reviewable by certiorari.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict and address whether such post-dependency orders are final (appealable), interlocutory (appealable under rule 9.130), or non-final (reviewable only by certiorari).
- The Court held that post-dependency orders retaining jurisdiction for future modification are non-final and reviewable by certiorari to avoid disrupting fluid dependency proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for post-dependency orders that anticipate future modification | Father: such orders should be appealable under rule 9.130(a)(4)/rule 9.110 (relying on W.W. and 2014 amendment) | DCF/Third DCA: such orders are non-final and should be reviewed by certiorari; 9.130 does not list post-dependency orders | Held: Orders retaining jurisdiction for modification are non-final and reviewable by common-law certiorari, not by appeal |
| Effect of 2014 amendment to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) | Father/First DCA: deletion makes post-judgment orders appealable as final under rule 9.110 | Majority: deletion meant to clarify review parity, not automatically convert post-judgment, modifiable orders into final appealable orders | Held: Amendment does not render post-dependency modifiable orders final or appealable; certiorari remains the proper mechanism |
| Whether retention of jurisdiction equals end of judicial labor (finality) | Father: order terminated supervision, so judicial labor ended and order is final | Majority: express reservation of jurisdiction for future welfare/visitation means judicial labor continues | Held: Retention of jurisdiction indicates non-finality; not an end to judicial labor |
| Whether certiorari or appeal better serves dependency proceedings | Father: appeal provides broader review rights; some DCAs have treated similar orders as appealable | Majority: certiorari is more appropriate to avoid disruption; it is the proper remedy for non-final orders not listed in 9.130 | Held: Certiorari is the correct, less disruptive mechanism for post-dependency orders subject to modification |
Key Cases Cited
- S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1974) (finality test: whether judicial labor has ended)
- Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2001) (common-law certiorari as extraordinary remedy and safety net)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So.3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (standards for certiorari review and limits on interlocutory appeals)
- Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Honeycutt, 609 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1992) (child dependency proceedings not within rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) family-law exception)
- Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 8 So.3d 1076 (Fla. 2008) (de novo review of pure legal questions)
- J.S. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 75 So.3d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (post-dependency orders reviewed by certiorari when jurisdiction reserved)
- R.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 19 So.3d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (district split on appealability of post-disposition dependency orders)