Case Name: K.A., the Mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-04-26
Citations: 217 So. 3d 231
Docket Number: No. 3D16-2739
Parties: K.A., the Mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 217
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
K.A., the Mother, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellees.
No. 3D16-2739
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed April 26, 2017
Jiulio Margalli, for appellant.
Karla Perkins, Appellate Counsel for Department of Children and Families; Laura J. Lee (Sanford), Appellate Counsel for Guardian ad Litem Program, for appel-lees.
Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.

Opinion:
EMAS, J.
On the second day of the adjudicatory hearing on a petition for termination of parental rights, appellant sought to call a witness to testify. However, appellant never listed this witness as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.245(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3). Further, appellee was unaware of the existence of this witness or appellant's intent to call this witness at the hearing. Appellee had never spoken with or had an opportunity to depose this witness or to prepare for the proffered testimony.
Appellee objected and asserted that this witness, and the proffered testimony, came as a complete surprise and caused prejudice, as the adjudicatory hearing had already been proceeding for two days, and appellee had no way of anticipating or preparing for this proffered evidence. The trial court agreed with appellee and, in the exercise of its discretion, prohibited appellant from presenting this witness at the hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination and ruling. See S.S. v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 784 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Affirmed.
. Appellant proffered that this witness would testify "to the extremely narrow issue as to the mother's psychological issue [and] returning back with the father of the children despite alleged inciden[ts] of domestic violence." While it is unclear whether this witness would even have been qualified to offer expert opinions in this regard, it is clear that such testimony was not reasonably related to the issues being adjudicated at this termination of parental rights hearing, providing an alternative basis for the court's exclusion of the witness.