Opinion ID: 1847404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: expedited review

Text: While not directly implicated in this case, we believe that one additional facet of termination proceedings deserves comment. Both this Court and the legislature have mandated that priority be given to appeals in termination cases. Consistent with this policy, the First District was properly concerned here that review of termination orders receive prompt attention since the future of a young child is, in essence, being put on hold. We agree that parties should be encouraged to initiate and prosecute their appeals with all due speed allowed by the law and consistent with a fair and orderly resolution of the issues. The legislature has emphasized that rapid resolution of these cases protects the affected parties, especially the children. This accent on expedited process has become apparent in amendments to the statutory framework. For example, the 1990 legislature added a second sentence to section 39.473(1), stating: The district court of appeal shall give an appeal from an order terminating parental rights priority in docketing and shall render a decision on the appeal as expeditiously as possible. § 39.473, Fla. Stat. (1991). [5] Consistent with that directive, the district courts have correctly emphasized the need to move these cases quickly through the judicial system. [6] See In Interest of C.G. v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 609 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Florida courts have also construed the appeal of a termination order to suspend further adoption proceedings. See In Interest of J.R.G. v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 624 So.2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). [7] Although the court in C.G. allowed an extension for filing the appellant's brief, it especially emphasized the importance of expeditious treatment: Even before the legislature mandated expedited appeals in parental termination cases, it was the policy of this court to expedite such appeals. In this case, the lives of two young children remain in limbo because one or more adults have not cared enough to perform the simple task of preparing a record on appeal. 609 So.2d at 632. As C.G. and J.R.G. vividly demonstrate, the importance of timely finality for the children involved in these proceedings cannot be overstated. Hopefully the affected parties will recognize the need to seek review as soon as is reasonably possible, and the courts will act expeditiously, but with caution and care, to resolve these sensitive issues. Accordingly, we quash G.L.S. and remand this case to the district court with directions to reinstate G.L.S.'s appeal. We approve Moore to the extent it is consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.