Full Opinion

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of L.M, D.M., and L.M., ) children. ) ___________________________________) ) G.S., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D20-829 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 3, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kim Hernandez Vance, Judge. Melody M. Dietsch, Brandon, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary Soorus, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee Florida Department of Children and Families. Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program. ORDER ON SHOW-CAUSE PROCEEDING PER CURIAM. Attorney Melody D. Dietsch, Florida Bar number 878390, appeared before this court on Wednesday, October 28, 2020, to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to comply with this court's orders in this appeal of a dependency order. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.146(h) requires this court to give priority to this appeal, and this court expects the attorneys for the parties to carry out their obligations in this proceeding in like fashion. On March 4, 2020, the Appellant, through trial counsel in the dependency proceeding, filed a notice of appeal. On March 11, dependency trial counsel filed a status report with an order from the trial court appointing attorney Dietsch to represent the Appellant. The record on appeal was transmitted to this court on April 16, 2020. On May 21, 2020, having received no initial brief, this court issued an order directing counsel for the Appellant to serve the initial brief within ten days. Attorney Dietsch did not respond. On July 8, 2020, this court issued an order noting that attorney Dietsch had not filed a notice of appearance and that an initial brief had not been filed. The order directed dependency trial counsel, as the only counsel of record, and attorney Dietsch to file a status report on the Appellant's representation and on the status of the overdue initial brief. Neither attorney responded. -2- On September 8, 2020, this court issued an order directing attorney Dietsch to serve the initial brief within seven days and cautioning her that a failure to comply could result in sanctions. Attorney Dietsch did not respond. On September 30, 2020, this court called and left attorney Dietsch a message advising that she had seven days to comply with the aforesaid orders or sanctions proceedings may commence. Attorney Dietsch did not respond. On October 12, 2020, this court issued an order to show cause directing attorney Dietsch to appear at this court's oral argument session on October 28, 2020, and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to respond to this court's orders of July 8 and September 8, 2020.1 On October 27, 2020, attorney Dietsch filed a motion to withdraw certifying that there were no meritorious grounds on which to base an appeal. On October 29, 2020, this court issued an order directing attorney Dietsch to, consistent with her representations to the court at the oral argument session, comply in a timely fashion with any pending or future orders of this court, consult with a mentor, and resolve the issues that caused her to have to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed the second time in one year.2 This court ordered attorney Dietsch to file a 1The process involved in arranging a show-cause appearance for a recalcitrant attorney, informally dubbed a "visit" in this court, is labor- and time-intensive. Of course, so are many processes undertaken by the court's legal and clerical staff, but visits require much time and labor spent on matters collateral to the substance of the appeal and even to the preliminary procedural matters involved in an appeal. In addition, visits delay finality for the parties, which is particularly important in child dependency proceedings. 2Attorney Dietsch appeared before the court on January 14, 2020, in response to an order to show cause in 2D19-1945, which was a father's appeal of an order terminating his rights to his children and also a case given priority under rule -3- status report within thirty days certifying that she has complied with the directives. Attorney Dietsch failed to file the status report. On October 30, 2020, this court granted attorney Dietsch's motion to withdraw but directed that she would remain in the appeal until she complied with the pending order to show cause. Due to attorney Dietsch's failure to comply with this court's directives and the attendant delays in this dependency proceeding, we refer this matter to The Florida Bar for investigation and initiation of such proceedings as may be appropriate. CASANUEVA, SLEET, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. 9.146(h). The order to show cause was discharged on January 29 after Attorney Dietsch properly responded to this court's directives. -4-