Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 17, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D18-0734 Lower Tribunal No. 14-15991 _ R.V., the father, Appellant, vs. Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria I. Sampedro-Iglesia, Judge. R.V., the father, in proper person. Law Office of Richard F. Joyce, P.A., and
Summary: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 17, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. _ No. 3D18-0734 Lower Tribunal No. 14-15991 _ R.V., the father, Appellant, vs. Department of Children and Families, et al., Appellees. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria I. Sampedro-Iglesia, Judge. R.V., the father, in proper person. Law Office of Richard F. Joyce, P.A., and R..
More
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 17, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-0734
Lower Tribunal No. 14-15991
________________
R.V., the father,
Appellant,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from the
Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria I. Sampedro-Iglesia, Judge.
R.V., the father, in proper person.
Law Office of Richard F. Joyce, P.A., and Richard F. Joyce; Lucia C.
Pineiro Esq. & Associates, P.A., and Lucia C. Pineiro, for J.A., the mother; Karla
Perkins, for Department of Children and Families, for appellees.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER, and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We grant appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Jimenez v.
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
669 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA
1996).
Further, upon consideration of the initial brief, and finding no preliminary
basis for reversal has been demonstrated, the order below is summarily affirmed
pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). See Soro v. Soro,
145
So. 3d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Fla. Detroit Diesel v. Nathai,
28 So. 3d 182 (Fla.
1st DCA 2010) (“[W]e conclude that the appellants’ initial brief fails to
demonstrate a preliminary basis for reversal and we therefore summarily affirm the
order without the need for an answer brief.”).
Affirmed.
2