Case Name: In the Interest of T.G., a child. Z.G., Petitioner, v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2010-10-15
Citations: 45 So. 3d 980
Docket Number: No. 2D10-1100
Parties: In the Interest of T.G., a child. Z.G., Petitioner, v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Respondents.
Judges: NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 45
Pages: 980–981

Head Matter:
In the Interest of T.G., a child. Z.G., Petitioner, v. Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Respondents.
No. 2D10-1100.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 15, 2010.
Sara Sanchez, New Port Richey, for Petitioner.
Jennifer S. Paullin, Tavares, for Respondent Guardian ad Litem Program.
D. Jeannine Dalton, Clearwater, for Respondent Department of Children and Family Services.

Opinion:
MORRIS, Judge.
Z.G., the father of T.G., petitions for a writ of certiorari directed at the trial court's order of supplemental adjudication of dependency. Z.G. also petitions for cer-tiorari review of a separate order which denied Z.G.'s motion for visitation. We deny the petition as to the dependency adjudication without further comment.
As to the visitation issue, we dismiss that portion of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The order which denied Z.G.'s motion for visitation was rendered November 20, 2009. Although it was a nonfinal, nonappealable order as to Z.G., Z.G. could and should have sought certio-rari review within thirty days from the date of that order. See C.V v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 19 So.3d 381, 384-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that this court did not have jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order in a dependency proceeding that declined to change placement of the child and that in such a case, this court's review is limited to that provided by common law certiorari).
We also note that the November 2009 order did not completely foreclose visitation. Instead, the trial court denied Z.G.'s motion without prejudice and specified that the Department of Children and Family Services would "have the discretion to allow [Z.G.] to have 1-hour per week supervised visitation with [T.G.] if [Z.G.] is making efforts on his [c]ase [p]lan tasks."
Denied in part; dismissed in part.
NORTHCUTT and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.