robertlathamesq.org

Finally, some case law

After a slow start to 2013, the appellate courts seem to be back in business:

Reflection on the importance of dependency orders. In re C.Z., — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 466209 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013).

Biology is still not everything in paternity cases. Van Weelde v. Van Weelde, — So.3d —-, (Fla. 2nd DCA 2013). 

And, we only got through one month of 2013 without a permanent guardianship case. Come on people. B.R. v. Department of Children and Families, — So.3d —-, 2013 WL 461498 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Comments

2 responses to “Finally, some case law”

  1. Permanent Guardianship Reversal #5 | robertlatham.wordpress.com

    […] is the fifth permanent guardianship reversal this year (see numbers 1, 2,  3 & 4). This time due to lack of specific findings regarding the parent’s […]

    Reply
  2. Permanent Guardianship Reversal #6 and Admission is not a proper case plan task | robertlatham.wordpress.com

    […] DCF and J.C. and GALP v. DCF, — So.3d —- (Fla. 2nd DCA) are Number Six. (see numbers 1, 2,  3 & 4, and […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *