A Florida court ruled on September 2, 2026, in a case involving S.C.T.A., a grandmother seeking custody of her grandson, I.D.T.M. The court denied motions from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to dismiss her appeal. This decision is significant as it addresses the rights of relatives in adoption cases, especially concerning the treatment of family members in custody disputes.
The case began when I.D.T.M. was born in Honduras in May 2020. After his birth, he lived with his parents and grandmother, S.C.T.A. In November 2020, the family fled Honduras due to violence and settled in Mexico. In May 2021, I.D.T.M.'s mother brought him to the United States, but his father was detained and deported back to Honduras.
Three months later, the DCF took custody of I.D.T.M. By the end of 2021, the circuit court terminated both parents' rights and placed I.D.T.M. with nonrelative foster care in Florida. S.C.T.A. traveled to the U.S. to seek custody, complying with DCF's requirements and applying for adoption. However, the DCF moved I.D.T.M. to a nonrelative foster home, where the caregivers also filed for adoption.
The Adoption Applicant Review Committee (AARC) reviewed the competing applications. In June 2025, they found S.C.T.A. fit to adopt but recommended denying her application in favor of the nonrelative caregivers. The DCF formally denied S.C.T.A.'s application in July 2025.
In August 2025, S.C.T.A. filed a motion for review in the circuit court, claiming DCF did not follow its own policies when denying her adoption application. She argued that DCF failed to consider her status as a preferred relative, which should have been factored into the decision. The circuit court held a hearing in November 2025 but denied her motion three months later. S.C.T.A. then filed an appeal.
The DCF argued that the appeal should be dismissed because I.D.T.M. had already been adopted by the nonrelative caregivers. They claimed that the court lost jurisdiction once the adoption was finalized. However, the court ruled that the appeal was not moot, stating, "We are not persuaded that the mere fact that the adoption was finalized during the appellate window stands as an impenetrable barrier to further review." The court recognized the importance of the issues raised by S.C.T.A., including her claims of due process violations.
The court also addressed the DCF's argument that S.C.T.A. lacked standing to appeal. The DCF cited a statute stating that a denied applicant's standing ends upon the court's order. The court, however, emphasized the constitutional right to seek review of final judgments, stating, "We do not construe the language of the statute as compromising our own jurisdiction." This ruling allows S.C.T.A. to continue her appeal despite the DCF's objections.
This decision is crucial for relatives seeking custody of children in similar situations. It highlights the importance of considering family relationships in adoption cases and ensures that relatives have a voice in the process. The court's ruling reinforces the legal principle that family members, especially grandparents, should be given due consideration in custody and adoption matters.
Moving forward, this case could set a precedent for how courts handle similar disputes involving relatives seeking custody. It emphasizes the need for agencies to adhere to their policies and consider the rights of family members in adoption proceedings. The court's decision may encourage other relatives to pursue their rights in custody cases, knowing that they have legal avenues to challenge decisions made by child welfare agencies.
As for what’s next, S.C.T.A. has filed a separate petition in the circuit court to vacate the adoption, which remains pending. This ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of family law and the challenges faced by relatives in custody disputes.