Narrative Opinion Summary
James Ted Dees appeals an order denying his motion to prevent the relocation of his former wife, Margaret Dawn Dees, and their minor child. The trial court determined that allowing the relocation serves the child's best interests. The appellate court dismisses the appeal as premature, noting that the trial court retains jurisdiction over related visitation issues. Citing precedents (T.H. v. Department of Children and Families and Newman v. Newman), the court emphasizes that the order is non-final due to the reserved jurisdiction for visitation and support matters. Additionally, since the order does not resolve child custody, it does not qualify as an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii). The appeal is dismissed, with judges VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING concurring, and WOLF offering a separate written opinion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Orders Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The order denying the motion to prevent relocation is not considered an appealable non-final order because it does not resolve child custody issues, as required by the specified appellate rule.
Reasoning: Additionally, since the order does not resolve child custody, it does not qualify as an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii).
Child's Best Interests in Relocation Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court determined that the relocation of the former wife and minor child serves the child's best interests, which is a primary factor in its decision.
Reasoning: The trial court determined that allowing the relocation serves the child's best interests.
Jurisdiction of Trial Court Over Visitation Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's order is deemed non-final because it retains jurisdiction over visitation matters, which prevents the order from being appealed at this stage.
Reasoning: The appellate court dismisses the appeal as premature, noting that the trial court retains jurisdiction over related visitation issues.
Premature Appeals in Family Law Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed as premature because the trial court's decision did not constitute a final order, as it left open issues of visitation and support.
Reasoning: The appellate court dismisses the appeal as premature, noting that the trial court retains jurisdiction over related visitation issues.