J.L., the Father v. Department of Children and Families
Docket 3D2026-0140
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Dismissed
- Docket
- 3D2026-0140
Petition for writ of certiorari to review denial of a pretrial motion in limine in a dependency/proceeding involving the Department of Children and Families
Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal dismissed J.L.'s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion in limine to exclude certain records. The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner did not show irreparable harm that could not be remedied on appeal from a final judgment. The court relied on precedent holding that rulings on motions in limine that exclude or admit evidence ordinarily can be corrected on direct appeal, so interlocutory certiorari review is inappropriate absent a showing of irreparable harm.
Issues Decided
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the denial of a motion in limine to exclude records
- Whether denial of the motion in limine caused irreparable harm that could not be remedied on appeal
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the rule that certiorari relief for interlocutory evidentiary rulings is available only when the petitioner shows irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on appeal. Because the petitioner failed to show such irreversible prejudice, and the alleged error could be remedied on appeal from a final judgment, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant certiorari. The court relied on its precedents holding that errors in admitting or excluding evidence at trial generally are addressed on direct appeal.
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Glazer671 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Aguilar v. Leal426 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Parties
- Petitioner
- J. L., the Father
- Respondent
- Department of Children and Families
- Respondent
- Guardian ad Litem
- Judge
- Denise Martinez-Scanziani
- Attorney
- Meaghan K. Marro
- Attorney
- Karla Perkins, B.C.S.
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-05-06
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed to trial
Prepare to try the case with the trial court's ruling in place and preserve a complete record of any prejudice at trial for appellate review.
- 2
Preserve appellate issues
Object at trial where appropriate and ensure the trial record reflects why the excluded evidence was critical, so the issue can be raised on direct appeal from a final judgment.
- 3
Consult appellate counsel
Discuss whether any post-judgment remedies or emergency motions are available and plan for a direct appeal if the final result is adverse.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court dismissed the petition for certiorari because the petitioner did not show irreparable harm that could not be fixed on appeal, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review the pretrial evidentiary ruling now.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The petitioner (the father) and the respondents (Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem) are affected because the trial court's evidentiary ruling remains in place for the upcoming trial.
- What can the petitioner do next?
- The petitioner can proceed to trial and, if a final judgment is entered, raise the evidentiary ruling as an error on direct appeal.
- Why didn't the court review the motion in limine now?
- Because intermediate certiorari relief requires showing irreparable harm that cannot be corrected later, and the petitioner failed to make that showing here.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 6, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D26-0140
Lower Tribunal No. 25-15001 TP D203
________________
J. L., the Father,
Petitioner,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Denise Martinez-Scanziani, Judge.
Marro Law, P.A., and Meaghan K. Marro (Plantation), for petitioner.
Karla Perkins, B.C.S., for respondent Department of Children and
Families; Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura
J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals (Tallahassee), for respondent Guardian
ad Litem.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s order
denying his pre-trial motion in limine to exclude certain records at trial. The
petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petitioner has not
established irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on appeal. See Fla.
Power & Light Co. v. Glazer, 671 So. 2d 211, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
(dismissing petition for certiorari seeking review of trial court’s order denying
a motion in limine to exclude evidence because the petition failed to establish
irreparable harm that could not be remedied on appeal); Aguilar v. Leal, 426
So. 3d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026) (“The exclusion of Aguilar’s expert’s
evidence, if erroneous, can be corrected on appeal of a final judgment. . . .
Because there is no irreparable harm shown, we dismiss the petition for lack
of jurisdiction[.]”).
Dismissed.
2