## Facts

- J.D.S., a 22-year-old woman living in a group home, had severe intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, autism, and a seizure disorder, and was unable to care for herself.
- J.D.S. became pregnant as a result of a sexual battery.
- Concerns arose that medications J.D.S. was taking could harm the fetus.
- The Florida Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) petitioned the circuit court to appoint a guardian for J.D.S. and a separate guardian (or guardian ad litem) for the unborn fetus.
- The trial court declined to appoint a fetal guardian, reasoning that an unborn fetus was not a “person” for purposes of guardianship.
- Jennifer Wixtrom, a professional guardian not then appointed in the case, sought appointment as guardian for the fetus, asserting J.D.S. lacked capacity to protect fetal interests and expressing concern the existing guardian might consent to an abortion.
- The trial court denied rehearing and did not appoint Wixtrom (or anyone) as fetal guardian; Wixtrom appealed.
- While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered an order indicating J.D.S.’s guardian had adopted a plan stating that an abortion would not be performed.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal was moot because the guardian’s court-recognized plan eliminated the asserted risk of abortion and left no effective relief to grant.
2. Whether Wixtrom, not appointed as guardian for J.D.S. or the fetus, had a sufficient legal interest to appeal the denial of a fetal-guardian appointment.

## Decision

- The Fifth District dismissed the appeal.
- The court concluded there was no longer a live controversy after the guardian’s plan expressly excluded abortion.
- The court further determined Wixtrom lacked a present, cognizable interest to maintain the appeal.
- The court did not reach the broader merits question of whether Florida law permits appointment of a guardian ad litem for an unborn fetus.

## Legal Principles

- Florida appellate courts dismiss appeals as moot when subsequent events end the controversy and the court cannot grant meaningful, non-advisory relief.
- Standing to appeal requires a direct, substantial, and legally cognizable interest affected by the judgment; an unappointed, prospective guardian generally lacks such an interest absent a recognized legal entitlement.
- Appellate courts may resolve cases on justiciability grounds (mootness and standing) without deciding broader statutory or personhood questions unnecessary to the disposition.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Wixtrom’s appeal because the ward’s guardian adopted a plan barring abortion, eliminating any live dispute, and because Wixtrom—who had not been appointed in the matter—lacked a sufficient legal interest to seek appellate review of the trial court’s refusal to appoint a guardian for the fetus.


Wixtrom v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams. Servs. (In re J.D.S.), 864 So. 2d 534 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)