Case ID: so3d_175/html/0920-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Interest of M.P., a child, Appellant.
    No. 2D15-2065.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Sept. 25, 2015.
    C. Carolina Maluje and Anna E. Galeano Guzman of Law Offices of C. Carolina Maluje, P.A., Miami Lakes, for Appellant.
    Stephanie C. Zimmerman, Bradenton, and Dwight O. Slater, Tallahassee, for Ap-pellee Department of Children and Families.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See O.I.C.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 169 So.3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (affirming the denial of a private petition for dependency based on the ground, among others, that the child who was being eared for by an uncle did not qualify as dependent); Dep’t of Children & Families v. Dixon, 938 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding, based on a concession of error, that the “trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct an adjudicatory hearing because the children turned 18 before the date of the hearing”); In re M.C.S., 327 P.3d 360, 363 (Colo.App.2014) (dismissing a petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that “a juvenile court has subject-matter jurisdiction only to adjudicate children younger than eighteen” and observing that the court is “not at liberty to expand either the definition of ‘child’ or the court’s jurisdictional, reach”).

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.