Pingree v. Quaintance, SS-125
| Decision Date | 11 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. SS-125,SS-125 |
| Citation | 394 So.2d 161 |
| Parties | David PINGREE, Secretary of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Appellant, v. Portia Elaine QUAINTANCE, Demetrius Denese Quaintance, Sean Connery Quaintance, and Latricia Ann Spencer, by and through her next friend, Ruby PearlQuaintance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert M. Eisenberg and Chester G. Senf, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Marie Y. Janiewski and Paul C. Doyle, Jacksonville, for appellees.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court's order denying a motion for new trial, rehearing and relief from judgment. We affirm.
On August 9, 1977, appellees filed a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Department to institute judicial review of all cases in which a child had been committed to foster care for a continuous six-month period as provided in Section 409.168(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1977). In its answer and in its response to a request for admissions, the Department admitted that it had not instituted proceedings in each case as required by the statute. Pursuant to motion, the trial court entered a summary judgment against the Department mandatorily enjoining it from failing to initiate the required judicial review. The Department moved for a new trial, rehearing and relief from judgment asserting that there had been no showing of irreparable harm and that the Department was in substantial compliance. The Department argued below and on appeal that it was excused from complete compliance due to its budgetary limitations.
We agree with the trial court and now hold that Section 409.168, Florida Statutes (1977), creates a right to judicial review in all cases in which children have been adjudicated dependent and have remained in continuous foster care for six months. 1 We note especially the statement of legislative intent found in Section 409.168(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which provides:
The Legislature finds that 7 out of 10 children placed in foster care do not return to their biological families after the first year and that permanent homes could be found for many of these children if their status were reviewed periodically and they were found eligible for adoption. It is the intent of the Legislature, therefore, to help ensure a permanent home for children in foster care by requiring periodic review and report on their status.
We further hold that the denial of this mandatory review creates irreparable harm for which injunctive relief is particularly appropriate. Since the Department admitted that it was not in compliance with the statutory requirements imposed upon it by Section 409.168, Florida Statutes (1977), the trial court correctly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc.
...rehearing is to give the trial court an opportunity to consider matters which it overlooked or failed to consider, Pingree v. Quaintance, 394 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and to correct any error if it becomes convinced that it has erred. Elmore v. Palmer First National Bank & Trust Co. o......
-
A.B., In Interest of, AQ-331
...without the benefit of a performance agreement, as perhaps many were in the transition period following 1980. Cf. Pingree v. Quaintance, 394 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which HRS cited budgetary limitations deterring the six-month judicial review required by 1977 Dependency due to par......
-
Carollo v. Carollo
...of which is to give the trial court an opportunity to consider matters which it overlooked or failed to consider, Pingree v. Quaintance, 394 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and to correct any error if it becomes convinced that it has erred. Elmore v. Palmer First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Sa......
-
Balmoral Condo. Ass'n v. Grimaldi
...matters which it overlooked or failed to consider.” Carollo v. Carollo, 920 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citing Pingree v. Quaintance, 394 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)). As this Court has explained, under rule 1.530, [a] rehearing is a second consideration of a cause for the sole purpo......