A.A.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 211 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). · Go Syfert
A.A.F. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 211 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: DEONTA HOWELL v. AMY U. HICKMAN (fladistctapp, 2019-06-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" DEONTA HOWELL v. AMY U. HICKMAN
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See A.A.F. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam., 211 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming denial of putative father’s motion to intervene and motion for relief from final judgment of termination of parental rights because putative father was not entitled to notice of proceedings where putative father did not timely register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry); § 63.063(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“A fraudulent representation is not a defense to compliance with the requirements of this chapter and is not a basis for dismissing a petition for termination of parental rights or a petition for …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
A.A.F., the Father
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and MR. and MRS. L.
Nos. 4D16-2970; 4D16-3222.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb 1, 2017.
211 So. 3d 271
Jorge E. Hurtado of Law Offices of Jorge E. Hurtado, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellant., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of Children and Families., Denise E. Kistner of Law Offices of Denise E. Kistner, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Mr. and Mrs. L.
Gross, Warner.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Appellant, a putative father,[1] challenges the denial of his motion to intervene and motion for relief from a final judgment of termination of parental rights, claiming he had no notice of the proceedings. Because he did not register with the Florida Putative Fathers Registry pursuant to section 63.054, Florida Statutes (2016), he was not entitled to notice. See § 68.088(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). The final judgment of termination concluded that there was no legal father, and that the appellee had made a diligent search for a father, including a search of the Putative Fathers Registry. Appellant, in seeking to intervene post-judgment and in seeking relief from judgment, did not raise the constitutional challenge to the statute that he raises on appeal—an as-applied challenge to the registry and notice provisions of the statute. He cannot raise such a challenge for the first time on appeal. Trush-in v. State, 425 So.2d 1126, 1129-30 (Fla. 1982). His procedural arguments were likewise not preserved in the trial court.

Affirmed.

Warner, Gross and May, JJ., concur.
1

Appellant’s paternity of the subject child has never been established. The child was born in April 2014, removed from the mother in July 2014, and a final judgment of termination was entered in January 2016. Appellant sought to intervene in May 2016.