Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B., Case No. 2D18-100

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtLUCAS, Judge.
Citation252 So.3d 788
Docket NumberCase No. 2D18-100
Decision Date27 July 2018
Parties GIFT OF LIFE ADOPTIONS, Petitioner, v. S.R.B., Respondent.

252 So.3d 788

GIFT OF LIFE ADOPTIONS, Petitioner,
v.
S.R.B., Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-100

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 27, 2018


Timothy M. Beasley, Pinellas Park, for Petitioner.

Ita M. Neymotin, Regional Counsel, Second District, and Ngozi C. Acholonu, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Conflict Counsel, Clearwater, for Respondent.

LUCAS, Judge.

Gift of Life Adoptions (GLA) is an adoption agency that is endeavoring to facilitate a baby's adoption by a prospective couple. As part of the adoption process, pursuant to section 63.089, Florida Statutes (2017), GLA initiated the underlying action to terminate the parental rights of the baby's biological parents. The biological mother of the baby, who had voluntarily surrendered her child to GLA for adoption, consented to the termination of her parental rights. The present controversy stems from the litigation to terminate S.R.B.'s parental rights, whom GLA refers to as "an unmarried putative biological father" of this child.

GLA served S.R.B. with a notice of an intended adoption plan while he was incarcerated in the Sarasota County Jail.1 In response, S.R.B. filed a handwritten paper in which he stated that he was the father of the baby and that he did not waive or consent to the termination of his parental rights. S.R.B. further stated that he was indigent "and would like the court to appoint an attorney to protect his right's [sic] as a parent." When informed by the clerk of the circuit court that it could not appoint him counsel, S.R.B. later filed a handwritten motion for the appointment of counsel to represent him in the termination proceeding.

GLA then filed a motion for default, arguing that because S.R.B. failed to comply with the statutory requirements of sections 63.062(2)(b)(2) and (3)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), his handwritten responses were insufficient, and he had therefore waived and surrendered any rights to the child. The circuit court held a hearing on GLA's motion, at which S.R.B. appeared telephonically and renewed his request for a court-appointed attorney. Relying upon language within this court's holding in S.C. v. Gift of Life Adoptions, 100 So.3d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), the circuit court felt bound to deny GLA's motion for default in

252 So.3d 790

order to appoint S.R.B. counsel.2 GLA now challenges that order in this timely petition for writ of certiorari.

The crux of GLA's argument for certiorari relief is that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law when it appointed S.R.B. counsel and that that error visited a material injury upon someone (GLA does not specify who) because the appointment of counsel "delays and places at risk" this child's prospective adoption. The substantive question GLA raises concerning S.R.B.'s right to counsel is a difficult one.3 But we cannot reach it in this certiorari proceeding.

Our jurisdiction to issue a writ for the "extraordinary remedy" of certiorari, Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) (quoting Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Fla. 1987) ), is well settled. To obtain certiorari relief, a petitioner must show "(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal." Reeves, 889 So.2d at 822 (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So.2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ). "The last two elements are jurisdictional and must be analyzed before the court may even consider the first element." Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011) (citing Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 527 (Fla. 1995) ). The petition before us fails to meet either jurisdictional prong.

GLA has not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. v. Venice HMA, LLC, 2D19-3745
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 29, 2021
    ...the first element." High Five Prods., Inc. v. Riddle , 286 So. 3d 890, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B. , 252 So. 3d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ).The Florida Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of certiorari jurisdiction over sovereign immunity defens......
  • Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. v. Venice HMA, LLC, 2D19-3745
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 2021
    ...the first element." High Five Prods., Inc. v. Riddle, 286 So.3d 890, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B., 252 So.3d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)). The Florida Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of certiorari jurisdiction over sovereign immunity defenses i......
  • Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. & Sarasota Cnty. v. Venice HMA, LLC, No. 2D19-3745
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 16, 2021
    ...element." High Five Prods., Inc. v.Page 29 Riddle, 286 So. 3d 890, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B., 252 So. 3d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)). The Florida Supreme Court squarely addressed the issue of certiorari jurisdiction over sovereign immunity defenses in......
  • Rich v. State, Case No. 2D19-4196
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 10, 2020
    ...1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011) (citing Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 527 (Fla. 1995) ).See Gift of Life Adoptions v. S.R.B., 252 So. 3d 788, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). It is simply impossible for us to meaningfully consider any of the three elements of certiorari relief when all we ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT