2D11-4366 / City of Plant City v. Dep't of Children & Family Services

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Second District Court of Appeal » 2012 » 2D11-4366 / City of Plant City v. Dep't of Children & Family Services

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D11-4366

Case Date: 11/28/2012

Plaintiff: 2D11-4366 / City of Plant City

Defendant: Dep't of Children & Family Services

Preview: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 J.B., a child. ) __________________________________ ) ) CITY OF PLANT CITY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILY SERVICES and GUARDIAN AD ) LITEM PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) __________________________________ ) Opinion filed November 28, 2012. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; James Pierce, Acting Circuit Judge. Thomas P. Scarritt, Jr., and Martin J. Champagne, Jr., of Scarritt Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Bernie McCabe, State Attorney, and Leslie M. Layne, Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, for Appellee Department of Children and Family Services. Jennifer S. Paullin of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tavares, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem Program. Patricia Alten, St. Petersburg, Attorney ad Litem for J.B., a child.

Case No. 2D11-4366

NORTHCUTT, Judge. The City of Plant City appeals an order denying its motion to inspect court records in a dependency case. We conclude that the City met its statutory burden to demonstrate that it had a proper interest in inspecting the records, and we reverse the order denying the City's request. J.B. is a child whose mother was killed in 2008 and whose father is incarcerated for that murder. The circumstances of her mother's death gave rise to a wrongful death action, filed in 2010 against the City based on allegations that its 911 operator was negligent. Also in 2010, J.B. came under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services in a dependency proceeding. The City filed a motion in the dependency proceeding seeking to inspect the court records concerning J.B. By statute, dependency court records are not public. Section 39.0132(3), Florida Statutes (2011), provides in pertinent part as follows: The clerk shall keep all court records required by this chapter separate from other records of the circuit court. All court records required by this chapter shall not be open to inspection by the public. All records shall be inspected only upon order of the court by persons deemed by the court to have a proper interest therein, except that, subject to the provisions of s. 63.162 [pertaining to adoption], a child and the parents of the child and their attorneys, guardian ad litem, law enforcement agencies, and the department and its designees shall always have the right to inspect and copy any official record pertaining to the child. (Emphasis added.) See also Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(7) (declaring confidential all records so designated under Florida law); (c)(8) (declaring confidential all records so

-2-

designated by Florida Statutes); (d)(1)(B)(i) (specifically listing dependency records under chapter 39 as confidential). In this case, the City asserted that it had a proper interest in J.B.'s dependency court records due to the wrongful death suit, which seeks to recover damages on J.B.'s behalf. After a hearing, the dependency court denied the motion. The court reasoned that the City "failed to put forth any compelling reason for the release of the confidential records sought which would outweigh the privacy interests of [the child]."1 Case law addressing confidential records under section 39.0132(3) is scant, and no authority directly answers the questions posed in this case. In R.L.F. v. Department of Children & Families, 63 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the Fifth District denied a petition in which a dependent child's stepfather sought a writ of mandamus directing the dependency court to grant him access to the child's court records. The R.L.F. court observed that a step-parent is not among those to whom the statute gives an absolute entitlement to the records. 63 So. 3d at 904 (citing section 39.0132(3), which lists those who "shall always have the right to inspect and copy" the otherwise confidential records). Therefore, the court held, the dependency court had discretion to determine whether to grant access to the stepfather. A discretionary ruling cannot be directed by a writ of mandamus. City of Miami Beach v. Mr. Samuel's, Inc., 351 So. 2d 719, 722 (Fla. 1977).

Apparently, no consideration was given to the possibility that thwarting the City's discovery might adversely affect the damages claim in the wrongful death suit, and so we will not address this point. -3-

1

After rejecting mandamus as an available remedy, R.L.F. suggested that abuse of discretion is the standard for reviewing circuit court rulings on applications for access to records under the statute. 63 So. 3d at 904 (stating that "trial court possessed discretion to determine whether to grant R.L.F. access to the records"). Applying the standard here, we note that an exercise of judicial discretion must always be governed by applicable law. See McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312, 326 (Fla. 2007) ("A trial court also abuses its discretion if its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law . . . ." (quoting in part Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In this case, the dependency court abused its discretion by failing to apply the test established in section 39.0132(3). The statute does not require a third party seeking to inspect dependency court records to prove that its interest in doing so is compelling or that it outweighs the child's privacy interest. When enacting the statute, the legislature has already weighed the interests at issue and determined that those with a "proper" interest in inspecting the records shall be permitted to do so. In the context of the statute as a whole, the test requires a third party seeking to inspect dependency court records to demonstrate that doing so will serve a legitimate and appropriate interest that differs from that of the public at large. The City made such a showing here. It is the defendant in a wrongful death suit that seeks to recover damages on the child's behalf. The child's recovery may include damages for loss of support and services determined in part by her relationship with her mother, "lost parental companionship, instruction, and guidance[,] and for mental pain and suffering." See

Download 2D11-4366.pdf