Fla. Dep't of Children & Families v. State
Decision Date | 24 June 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 3D20-0745,3D20-0745 |
Parties | FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida and A.L., Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel, and Andrew J. McGinley, Assistant General Counsel (Tallahassee), for petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent State of Florida, and Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for respondent A.L.
Before EMAS, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
The Department of Children and Families (the "Department"), a non-party to the proceedings below, petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order compelling it to arrange for the provision of mental health treatment in jail to an inmate adjudicated incompetent to proceed. We find the trial court was not authorized to issue this order without adequate notice and therefore grant the petition and quash the trial court's order.
The Department contends that certiorari relief is warranted as the trial court's order is a departure from the essential requirements of the law that causes it irreparable harm, for which it has no adequate remedy on appeal. See Dep't of Children & Families v. Morrison, 727 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ( ). The trial court's order granted relief that was not requested or noticed for hearing by either party.1 See Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Blocker, 728 So. 2d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ; Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod v. State, 711 So. 2d 1246, 1248-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and the cases cited therein. "We have previously held that ‘the granting of relief, which is not sought by the notice of hearing or which expands the scope of a hearing and decides matters not noticed for hearing, violates due process.’ " Afanasiev v. Alvarez, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D442, D442 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2020) (quoting Lapciuc v. Lapciuc, 275 So. 3d 242, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ); see also Mizrahi v. Mizrahi, 867 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (). This denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, for which...
To continue reading
Request your trial