J.D. v. Department of Children and Families — Fifth District affirmed without a written opinion

Case
J.D., Mother of S.J.W. and A.A.W., Minor Children v. Department of Children and Families
Court
Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal
Judge
MAKAR (Ron DeSantis, 2023); LAMBERT (Rick Scott, 2014); Soud (Ron DeSantis, 2022)
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
5D2026-1219
Topics
Child dependency; Family law; Per curiam affirmance
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

J.D., the mother of the minor children S.J.W. and A.A.W., appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Marion County in a child-dependency proceeding. Circuit Judge Bradley E. King presided below.

The Department of Children and Families appeared as appellee, and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office participated on behalf of the children. The appellate opinion does not describe the circuit court’s ruling, the underlying facts, the issues raised on appeal, or the parties’ arguments.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The three-judge panel issued its ruling per curiam, with Judges Makar, Lambert, and Soud concurring.

The court provided no written reasoning or discussion of the governing law. Accordingly, the opinion establishes only that the judgment under review was affirmed; it does not identify the grounds for affirmance or announce a legal rule.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth District affirmed the Marion County Circuit Court’s decision.
  • The ruling was an unexplained per curiam affirmance.
  • The opinion supplies no facts, legal analysis, or basis for the court’s decision.

Why It Matters

The ruling leaves the circuit court’s decision in place as to J.D. and her minor children. Because the appellate court did not explain its reasoning, the opinion offers no substantive guidance on child-dependency law or the issues presented in the appeal.

The decision was designated nonfinal until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top