T.D. v. K.D., 99-2650
| Decision Date | 15 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-2650,99-2650 |
| Citation | 747 So.2d 456 |
| Parties | (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 1999) T. D., Appellant, v. K. D., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Robert A. Rosenberg, Judge; L.T. Case No. 93-9664CJDP.
Gary S. Israel of Gary S. Israel, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard L. Rosenbaum of Law Offices of Richard L. Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, and August La Rocco of Fixel & La Roco, Hollywood, for appellee.
The parties were divorced in 1985 in the circuit court in question. They agreed on shared parental custody but the mother was the primary residential parent and he was given rights to visitation. In 1993 the father was charged with criminally molesting the child, and at the same time dependency proceedings were brought, all in the same circuit court. The judge presiding over the divorce case consolidated it with the dependency case in the juvenile division. Ultimately the criminal charges were dismissed. The dependency case was also dismissed by an order of the juvenile division stating that:
The dependency case was then closed.
In 1999 the mother filed a motion to suspend the father's right to visitation. The caption of the motion was in the style of the divorce case1 and bore the case number of that action, namely number 85-22688, as well as the name of the judge now assigned to that case in the family division in Broward County, namely Judge Goldenberg. The motion stated that:
1. In December 1985, the court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
2. The final judgment incorporated a settlement agreement by the parties in which they agreed to shared parental responsibility with the mother as residential parent, and the father having visitation rights upon 48 hours notice, with the mother being present during the visitation, until the child was 4; at which time the father would then be entitled to regular visitation one weekend monthly and one afternoon weekly without the presence of the mother, as well as certain holidays.
3. The father's visitation had become only sporadic and the child did not want to continue seeing him. When he did exercise visitation, the father would sometimes send a driver and often left the child alone and unattended.
4. In April 1992 the child complained of sexual abuse by the father; and dependency proceedings were commenced then terminated because the child was safe with the mother and the father was no longer exercising his right to see the child.
5. The father was criminally charged with abusing his child, which was dismissed. He was also charged with procuring for prostitution regarding other persons, which remains pending.
6. The previously described events amount to a significant change of circumstances, and the best interests of the child, require a modification of the final judgment of dissolution by terminating shared parental custody and the father's right of visitation.
The motion closes with a prayer that the court temporarily suspend all visitation and award the mother reasonable attorney's fees.
As the father puts it in his brief, "[s]omehow the matter found its way before Hon. Robert A. Rosenberg in the Juvenile Division for the dependency court" at a hearing seven days after this motion was filed. The father objected to the matter being held in the juvenile division ostensibly as a dependency case, pointing out that the motion was for modification and belonged in the family division before the judge now assigned to the dissolution of marriage case. The trial judge announced, however, that he was going to treat the motion as an application to reopen the juvenile court dependency case and that he would maintain the status quo by a no contact order. It is that decision that the father has appealed.
We reverse the assertion of jurisdiction2 over the modification matter in the closed dependency case. It is beyond any dispute from the clear text of the motion initiating these proceedings that the mother sought a modification of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage with regard to visitation. The word dependency is mentioned,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...that is within its subject matter jurisdiction," as determined by reference to the case's procedural posture . See T.D. v. K.D. , 747 So. 2d 456, 457 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This species of jurisdiction is termed "case jurisdiction" or "continuing jurisdiction" by some courts. It has also......
-
Allen v. Helms
...in this case, still has the power to preside over this particular dispute between the parties. This court noted in T.D. v. K.D. , 747 So. 2d 456, 457 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), that the word "jurisdiction" ordinarily refers to "subject matter" or "personal" jurisdiction, but there is a third ......
-
Schroeder v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P.
...over a particular case that is within its subject matter jurisdiction.’ " MCR Funding , 771 So. 2d at 35 (quoting T.D. v. K.D. , 747 So. 2d 456, 457 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ). "The concept of ‘the power of the court over a particular case’ is rooted in the notion that given the procedural p......
-
Streicher v. U.S. Bank Nat'Lass'N
...some Florida courts refer to the second type of subject-matter jurisdiction as "case jurisdiction." See T.D. v. K.D., 747 So. 2d 456, 457 n.2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) ("We use the word 'jurisdiction' advisedly even though it has different meanings, each with different implications. Ordina......
-
Florida's third species of jurisdiction.
...unwaivable subject matter jurisdiction in Durie v. Hanson, 691 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The Fourth District in T.D. v. K.D., 747 So. 2d 456, 458 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), took a different approach, holding instead that Randle-Eastern jurisdiction was not subject matter jurisdicti......