On Wednesday I’ll be doing oral argument in the Florida 3rd DCA on the question of whether DCF has standing to file a belated appeal under In the Interest of E.H., 609 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 1992).
Here’s the setup: DCF missed the 30-day cutoff for filing its appeal by 10 days, and then brought a writ of habeas corpus for belated appeal. GALP is defending the order being appealed and, because it believes it to be in the child’s best interest for the trial court’s order to stand, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DCF then filed a motion to strike the motion to dismiss, saying that the correct challenge to a belated appeal under E.H. is to file a direct appeal on the writ, not a motion to dismiss on the appeal the writ authorized.
Substantively, regarding DCF’s standing to get a belated appeal in the first place, DCF has taken the position that its role as custodian of a child who is pending adoption grants it rights and responsibilities equivalent to those that are constitutionally protected for parents. Therefore, they say, E.H. should be extended to the Department. GALP has taken the position that DCF’s responsibilities are purely statutory and the Department has no right to effective assistance of counsel, much less any constitutionally protected rights to the child. The child has a GAL or AAL to act on his or her behalf to determine if an action by the Department threatens the child’s interests.
There are lots of issues rolled up in this one, so it could definitely be a case to watch.