A.P.B., the Father, Appellant, v. T. C.-M., the Mother, et al., Appellees. (2020)

Affirmed. See Balmoral Condo. Ass'n v. Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (When reviewing a motion for relief from judgment the “trial court is restricted ․ to the narrow grounds stated [in the rules of procedure], and is not empowered to revisit a final judgment on the merits so as to correct errors of law as the trial court may do on a motion for rehearing.” (quoting Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So. 2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)) (citations omitted)); Gen. Comput. Servs. v. AP SC River Oaks LLC, 130 So. 3d 722, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“[P]rinciples of res judicata bar successive motions for relief from judgment where the grounds for relief ‘were repetitive of those asserted in the first motion, or which with due diligence could have been asserted in the first motion.’ ” (quoting Veloso v. Trustcorp Cap. Leasing, 791 So. 2d 1138, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001))); Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (“[T]he doctrine of res judicata not only bars issues that were raised, but it also precludes consideration of issues that could have been raised but were not raised in the first case.” (citation omitted)).

GORDO, J.