It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice." Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, 225 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).ANALYSIS

Moreover, in a certiorari proceeding, "[t]he required 'departure from the essential requirements of law' means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice." Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, 225 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). ANALYSIS

We deny the petition as it relates to the order denying Ms. Hester's motion to dissolve lis pendens. SeeMajestic Sun Owners' Ass'n , 895 So. 2d at 534-35 ; see alsoChessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc. , 225 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Dismissed.

A.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1717 (Fla. 3d DCA July 3, 2019). Because we find that the first two jurisdictional prongs of certiorari review are satisfied, see Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), we focus our analysis on the third prong, i.e., whether the trial court's August 14, 2019 order departed from the essential requirements of law. The Mother argues that, by ordering the parties to participate in the Family Bridges reunification program, the trial court essentially modified the terms of the parties' existing timesharing without providing the Mother essential due process protections.

"The traditional manner of stating the test for certiorari of a non-final order is somewhat misleading because it places the substantive issue before the jurisdictional issue." Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). "Certiorari is an appropriate remedy for orders severing or bifurcating claims which involve interrelated factual issues because severance risks inconsistent outcomes."

The first two prongs are jurisdictional and must be established by the petitioner "before this court has power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law." Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So. 3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So. 2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ). As the protection of the health, safety, and well-being of a child is of paramount importance under Florida law, and a custody determination that fails to comport with Florida law poses an immediate threat of irreparable harm to the child, we have jurisdiction.

Thus, notwithstanding Petitioners' legal limbo, we are unable to conclude that the trial court, in its refusal to lift the stay, somehow departed from the essential requirements of law. Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So.3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). While we are not unsympathetic to Petitioners' posture, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

The first two prongs of the analysis are jurisdictional. Chessler v. All American Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So.3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("The traditional manner of stating the test for certiorari of a non-final order is somewhat misleading because it places the substantive issue before the jurisdictional issue."), citing Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("[A] petitioner must establish that an interlocutory order creates material harm irreparable by postjudgment appeal before the court has the power to determine whether the order departs from the essential requirements of the law."). As "[o]rders granting discovery, including discovery of work product materials, are amenable to certiorari review because appeal after a final judgment in a case where discovery was improperly granted seldom provides adequate redress," the orders under review reflect a potential for the infliction of irreparable injury that cannot be remedied upon postjudgment appeal.

Finally, with regard to certiorari review, we note that, even if Venezia somehow were able to establish the requisite necessary harm in order to invoke this Court's certiorari jurisdiction, Venezia, to be entitled to relief, would have to establish that the trial court's scheduling order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So.3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). We would be hard-pressed to conclude that the subject order – merely scheduling a foreclosure sale pursuant to a judgment that has been affirmed on appeal – would constitute any departure from the essential requirements of law.

Moreover, "[t]he required ‘departure from the essential requirements of law’ means something far beyond legal error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice." Chessler v. All Am. Semiconductor, Inc., 225 So.3d 849, 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1985) (Boyd, C.J., concurring specially)). Given the trial court's well-reasoned and meticulously documented order, and our own review of Dr. Torres's deposition, we fail to find the type of essential illegality and gross miscarriage of justice that is the focus of certiorari.