J.M.A. v. C.C.A.

PER CURIAM. We initially accepted review of the opinion in C.C.A. v. J.M.A., 744 So.2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), based on alleged express and direct conflict with the opinion in Dan [706] iel v. Daniel, 695 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1997). Upon further consideration, we find that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss review of this cause. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur. LEWIS, J., dissents with an opinion.