Summary
granting certiorari review of orders that allowed non-parties to intervene in a dependency proceeding, contrary to the governing rule and public policy, where the orders posed a risk of irreparable harm to the parents and to the child by interfering with parental rights and with the actions the Department considered necessary to prevent risk to the child while the dependency action was pending
Summary of this case from State v. B.D.Opinion
Case Nos. 96-2740 and 96-2875
Opinion filed February 19, 1997
Consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Richard B. Burk, Judge; L.T. Case No. CJ 96-300215 JM.
Frank A. Kreidler, Lake Worth, for Petitioner/Father J.L.
Judith B. Migdal-Mack of Migdal Migdal, P.A., Delray Beach, for Petitioner/Mother M.O.
Barry D. Goldman, Boca Raton, for Respondent P.L.
We grant certiorari review of two orders that allowed nonparties to intervene in a dependency proceeding. After the petition for dependency was filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the trial court granted motions to intervene filed by the child's maternal grandmother and maternal aunt and uncle.
Now the Department of Children and Family Services. Fla. L. ch. 96-403.
We have certiorari jurisdiction to review such orders because they pose a risk of irreparable harm to both the parents and the children. This could arise not only from interference with petitioners' parental rights, but also with the actions deemed necessary by the Department to prevent risk to the child while the dependency case is pending. See Florida Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Doe, 659 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995),rev. denied sub nom. Doe v. Brown, 668 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1996).
Rule 8.210(a), Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure (1996), limits the parties to a juvenile proceeding. That rule provides:
(a) Definitions. For the purpose of these rules the terms `party' and `parties' shall include the petitioner, the child, the parent(s) of the child, the department, and the guardian ad litem, when appointed.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by allowing persons who do not fall within the definition of "parties" to intervene. The granting of party status to these relatives was also contrary to Florida's strong public policy against unwarranted interference with the parenting decisions of an intact family unit. Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 1996).
The orders granting intervention are quashed. On remand, the trial court may consider whether the relatives should be granted nonparty participant status under rule 8.210(b), Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
STONE, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.