Case Name: A.A.F., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and MR. and MRS. L., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-02-01
Citations: 211 So. 3d 271
Docket Number: Nos. 4D16-2970; 4D16-3222
Parties: A.A.F., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and MR. and MRS. L., Appellees.
Judges: Warner, Gross and May, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 211
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
A.A.F., the Father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and MR. and MRS. L., Appellees.
Nos. 4D16-2970
4D16-3222
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
February 1, 2017
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.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant, a putative father, 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.
. 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.