Background
R.F., the father, appealed an order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment terminating his parental rights.
The trial court denied the motion because it was not signed by a member in good standing of the Florida Bar. The Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office confessed error, acknowledging that the court had imposed the lawyer-review-and-signature requirement without adequate prior notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District accepted the appellees’ confession of error and held that the trial court reversibly erred by requiring all future filings to be reviewed and signed by a Florida Bar member in good standing without first providing adequate notice.
The appellate court reversed the order denying R.F.’s motion to vacate and remanded with directions for the trial court to issue the requisite order to show cause. The court did not decide the merits of the motion to vacate or the underlying termination judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A court may not impose a prospective lawyer-review-and-signature filing restriction without adequate prior notice.
- The filing restriction could not support denial of the father’s motion to vacate because the required procedure had not been followed.
- On remand, the trial court must issue an order to show cause before proceeding with the proposed filing restriction.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the procedural safeguards that must precede restrictions on a litigant’s access to the courts. Even in proceedings involving a final judgment terminating parental rights, a filing restriction cannot be enforced without the required notice and opportunity to respond.