In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration , 132 So. 3d 1114 ( 2014 )

Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC12-2007
____________
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.
____________
No. SC12-2030
____________
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF
PROCEDURE.
[January 16, 2014]
PER CURIAM.
We have for consideration two separate petitions to amend the Florida Rules
of Court, filed by the Florida Supreme Court’s Steering Committee on Families
and Children in the Court (Steering Committee). 1 In the first petition, case number
SC12-2007, the Steering Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.545(d) (Case Management; Related Cases). In the
1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
second petition, case number SC12-2030, the Steering Committee proposes five
new Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. The Steering Committee’s proposals
in these petitions advance the important goal of effectively implementing the
unified family court model to ensure that all parties, attorneys, and judges in a
family case receive proper notice of other related family cases. These proposals
also outline new procedures for assigning related family cases to a single judge
unless impractical and for coordinating related family cases assigned to different
judges.
In adopting the Steering Committee’s proposals, we continue to express our
strong support for the general guiding principles and characteristics of the model
family court espoused in In re Report of the Commission on Family Courts
(Family Courts I), 588 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1991); In re Report of the Commission on
Family Courts (Family Courts II), 633 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1994); In re Report of the
Commission on Family Courts (Family Courts III), 646 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1994);
and In re Report of the Family Court Steering Committee (Family Courts IV), 794
So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2001). As we stated when the Court unanimously endorsed the
recommendations of the Steering Committee in Family Courts IV:
Having reviewed the Committee’s recommendations, we
strongly endorse the guiding principles and characteristics of the
model family court developed therein and we reaffirm our
commitment to the principles we espoused in In re Report of
Commission on Family Courts, 588 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1991)
(Family Courts I) and Family Courts II. In so doing, our goal
-2-
continues to be the creation of “a fully integrated, comprehensive
approach to handling all cases involving children and families,”
Family Courts II, 633 So. 2d at 17, while at the same time resolving
family disputes in a fair, timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner.
We also stress the importance of embracing methods of resolving
disputes that do not cause additional emotional harm to the children
and families who are required to interact with the judicial system.
794 So. 2d at 519-20. With the Steering Committee’s assistance, the amendments
adopted by the Court here address remaining impediments to the effective
implementation of the unified family court model and further this Court’s goal of
ensuring that cases involving families and children are managed in an efficient
manner that serves the best interests of the parties.
BACKGROUND
The Steering Committee’s petitions represent years of work to implement
the unified family court model and to overcome impediments to its operation.
Beginning in 1994, this Court established the Steering Committee to support and
assist the Court in developing and fully implementing the family court concept in
Florida, and we directed the Steering Committee to, among other things, develop
recommendations on the characteristics of a model family court, including
organization, policy, procedures, staffing, resources, and linkages to the
community to assist children and families involved in litigation. See Family
Courts II, 633 So. 2d at 18-19. The Court considered the Steering Committee’s
recommendations in Family Courts IV.
-3-
As is relevant here, the Steering Committee recommended that the Court
adopt a rule of judicial administration to require judges assigned to different cases
involving the same family to confer, as well as to coordinate pending litigation to
maximize judicial efforts, prevent inconsistent court orders, and avoid multiple
court appearances by the parties on the same issues. Family Courts IV, 794 So. 2d
at 526. Because the Steering Committee did not submit a specific rule proposal,
the Court referred the matter back to the Steering Committee to develop
appropriate standards. Id. As the Court stated at that time:
Coordination of cases is critical. Indeed, in 1991, the
Commission on Family Courts noted that there is “no justification to
have situations such as have been presented to the commission which
indicate that families were required to appear before one judge in a
dissolution proceeding that included determination of custody of the
children and at the same time to have a hearing before another judge
concerning the juvenile dependency of one of the children including
the determination of the custody of that child.” Family Courts I, 588
So. 2d at 588.
Because a specific rule has not been submitted, we refer this
important matter back to the Family Court Steering Committee for the
development of appropriate standards to be followed when there are
multiple court appearances in different cases by the parties on the
same issue. Some specific aspects the Committee should consider are
whether there should be notice to the parties when cross-over cases
are identified before consolidation or coordination occurs and whether
the confidentiality requirements in chapter 39 (regarding dependency
cases) will restrict the ability of the court to coordinate these cases.
Of course, if all cases involving the same family are identified
and assigned to a single judge, many of these problems of
coordination and confidentiality will be eliminated. As the
Committee’s commentary observes:
Automatic transfer avoids any complaint about ex
parte communication between the judges. See Chaddick
-4-
v. Monopoli, 714 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1998) (judges must
allow parties to be present during conference on
interstate jurisdiction). It also avoids any dispute over
the chief judges’ authority to resolve these issues.
Because of the broad jurisdiction of our circuit courts, which
includes jurisdiction over all of the types of cases listed above,
coordination of cases, and more particularly assignment to one
circuit court judge, can be accomplished—provided that the
technology and necessary staff is in place to identify the related
cases.
Id. (emphasis added).
Consistent with our direction in Family Courts IV, the Steering Committee
developed standards to handle related family cases, and in 2005 the Court adopted
amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.085 (Time Standards for
Trial and Appellate Courts), creating a new subdivision (d) (Related Cases). This
new subdivision set forth a procedure for the petitioner in a family case to file a
Notice of Related Cases if such cases are known or reasonably ascertainable. See
In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin. (Two-Year Cycle), 915 So. 2d 157,
160 (Fla. 2005). Rule 2.085 was later renamed and renumbered as Florida Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.545 (Case Management). See In re Amends. to Fla.
Rules of Jud. Admin.—Reorganization of the Rules, 939 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla.
2006).
When the Steering Committee was reauthorized for a subsequent two-year
term in 2006, the Committee was charged with, among other requests, examining
existing court rules that impact the implementation of the unified family court
-5-
model. The Steering Committee was also asked to develop and recommend
additional rules, suggest the repeal of rules, and propose amendments to existing
rules as may be needed to enhance the implementation of the unified family court
model. See In re Steering Comm. on Families & Children in the Court, Fla.
Admin. Order No. AOSC06-30 (August 30, 2006).
Ultimately, in its 2006-2008 End of Term Report, the Steering Committee
identified nine impediments to the successful implementation of the unified family
court model. As is relevant here, Impediment 3 pertained to Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.545(d) and the Notice of Related Cases. The Steering Committee
recommended in Impediment 3 that “in order to develop the most effective and
efficient notice rule, the broader operational issues involved in handling related
cases should first be further studied.” Fla. Supreme Court’s Steering Comm. on
Families & Children in the Court, Report of the 2006-2008 Families & Children in
the Court Steering Comm., at 52 (2008).
Over the next two years, the Steering Committee was charged with
prioritizing, studying, and recommending resolutions to the nine impediments it
had identified, including Impediment 3. See In re Steering Comm. on Families &
Children in the Court, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC08-97 (Dec. 22, 2008). In
2010, the Committee was specifically directed to:
Examine rule 2.545(d), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration,
which requires the petitioner in a family case to file with the court a
-6-
notice of related cases, and propose amendments that ensure all of the
necessary parties and attorneys receive proper notification and that
also prevent problems with regard to notice, case coordination, scope
of representation, and efficiency that were identified during the 2006-
2008 term of the Steering Committee (Impediment 3).
See In re Steering Comm. on Families & Children in the Court, Fla. Admin. Order
No. AOSC10-50 (Sept. 10, 2010). In June 2012, the Steering Committee
submitted its 2010-2012 End of Term Report. Regarding its charge to examine
and recommend resolutions to Impediment 3, the report indicated that the Steering
Committee would file two petitions, one proposing amendments to the Florida
Family Law Rules of Procedure and one seeking to amend the Florida Rules of
Judicial Administration.
In September 2012, the Steering Committee filed the petitions currently
before the Court. As noted, in case number SC12-2007, the Steering Committee
proposes amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d) (Case
Management; Related Cases). In case number SC12-2030, the Steering Committee
proposes five new Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure: 12.003 (Coordination
of Related Family Cases and Hearings); 12.004 (Judicial Access and Review of
Related Family Files); 12.006 (Filing Copies of Orders in Related Family Cases);
12.007 (Access and Review of Related Family Files by Parties); and 12.271
(Confidentiality of Related Family Hearings).
-7-
The Court published both sets of proposals in The Florida Bar News for
comment. No comments were filed in case number SC12-2007. The Court
received two comments in case number SC12-2030, one from the Family Law
Rules and Forms Committee of the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar (the
Family Law Section), and one from the Family Law Rules Committee. The
Steering Committee filed a response to the comments, with a revised proposal to
amend Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d), as well as revisions to its
proposed new Family Law Rules of Procedure. Because the comments and
response in case number SC12-2030 impacted the Steering Committee’s petition to
amend Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d) in case number SC12-2007, we
consolidated the cases and held oral argument.
We note that there were no comments filed in opposition to the concepts
embodied in the petitions, which aim to ensure that the goals of the unified family
court are not impeded by existing procedural rules. The recommended revisions
and alternate proposals submitted by the Family Law Section and the Family Law
Rules Committee simply suggested alternate ways to accomplish the same goals.
The Family Law Rules Committee favored placement of the proposed new
Family Law rules within the Rules of Judicial Administration and also proposed a
more formal conference procedure, modeled after the procedures followed when
judges from different states confer under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
-8-
and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), so that the parties are ensured that they can
meaningfully participate when judges are conferring with each other. The Chair of
the Family Law Rules Committee also reported concerns in ensuring that
conflicting orders are not entered when different judges are handling different
aspects of cases involving the same family. Preventing conflicting orders is one of
the critical goals of the unified family court, and circuits where this problem still
occurs should re-examine their existing practices.
As for the Family Law Section, the Section not only favored the adoption of
procedural rules that would remove impediments to the effective implementation
of the unified family court model, but also suggested that all cases involving the
same family should be assigned to one judge. As stated during oral argument, the
“Section absolutely embraces the concept of family court, the one family/one judge
model.”
We are pleased to receive this unanimous endorsement of the Court’s
adoption of the principles underlying the unified family court in Florida, which
represents a critical commitment to ensuring that the court system manages its
cases in a manner that will best resolve the issues facing families and children who
come before the courts. As one member of the Steering Committee sagely stated,
“families do not think of their problems in terms of divisions of the court.” For a
family who has to appear before different judges at different times for related
-9-
issues, this type of fragmented approach does not best serve the interests of the
family or the children.
With these considerations in mind, and with deference to the expertise of the
Steering Committee, we have determined to adopt the Steering Committee’s
proposals with some modifications, as addressed below.
AMENDMENTS
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545 (Case Management)
Initially, subdivision (d)(1) of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545
is amended to clarify that the term “family case” is defined in the rule (in
subdivision (d)(2)), and to add a cross-reference to the relevant Family Law Form,
Form 12.900(h) (Notice of Related Cases). Additionally, subdivision (d)(2) of rule
2.545 is amended to add a “stalking” injunction to the definition of a family case.
The crux of the changes is contained in subdivision (d)(4) of rule 2.545. As
amended, the rule provides that the Notice of Related Cases shall be filed in each
open and pending related case, and served on all parties in each of the related cases
and as may be directed by the chief judge. This change is consistent with the
Steering Committee’s charge—to ensure that all of the necessary parties, attorneys,
and judges involved in a family case receive proper notification of related family
cases. Language is also added in subdivision (d)(4) of rule 2.545, allowing parties
to file joint Notices of Related Cases; clarifying that a Notice of Related Cases
- 10 -
filed pursuant to the rule is not an appearance; providing that if any related case is
confidential and exempt from public access by law, then a Notice of Confidential
Information Within Court Filing must accompany the notice, pursuant to Florida
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420; and directing parties to file supplemental
Notices of Related Cases as such cases become known or reasonably ascertainable.
We also delete existing subdivision (d)(7), because the language in this
provision is now included in subdivision (d)(4) of rule 2.545.
Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure
As noted, the Steering Committee’s proposal in case number SC12-2030
included five new Family Law Rules of Procedure. Both the Family Law Section
and the Family Law Rules Committee provided comments on the proposed new
rules. While the comments of both the Family Law Section and the Family Law
Rules Committee contained several suggestions to amend or revise the Steering
Committee’s proposals, there was no opposition to the unified family court model.
One of the comments from the Family Law Rules Committee suggested that
the substance of the Steering Committee’s proposals would be better placed in
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545. While the Court considered the Family
Law Rules Committee’s suggestion, ultimately we defer to the Steering Committee
and have adopted its proposals with some minor modifications. We address each
of the new rules in turn.
- 11 -
The first new Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure we adopt is rule 12.003
(Coordination of Related Family Cases and Hearings). Subdivision (a)
(Assignment to One Judge) of this important new rule provides that all related
family cases must be handled before one judge unless impractical. This rule is
consistent with the Court’s 2001 opinion in Family Courts IV, which encourages
this practice.
The Family Law Section and the Family Law Rules Committee both raised
concerns that the language “unless impractical” is vague and may be subject to
different interpretations in different courts. The Family Law Section favored a
mandatory requirement to have related family cases heard before a single judge,
except in narrowly defined categories such as when the cases are in different
circuits. The Family Law Section was especially concerned that the “unless
impractical” language “will allow for a lot of arguments that were not the intent of
the rule.”
The Steering Committee agrees that one judge should be the model, but
recognizes the need for flexibility. We defer to the views of the Steering
Committee, whose members are uniformly committed to the one judge/one family
model, that there must be some flexibility to manage related family cases under
limited circumstances. If the Steering Committee, in monitoring the actual
practices, discerns that the “unless impractical” language is being used when there
- 12 -
is no valid reason for one judge not to handle all related family cases, then the
Court will consider a revised proposal in the future.
We fully agree with the Family Law Section that having one judge handle all
related family cases is the goal and should be the model for the circuits to follow.
Through effective case management, this goal should be realized in the
overwhelming majority of cases. To the extent that one judge is not handling all
related family cases, we urge each circuit to examine its practices to determine
why this is currently occurring.
In tandem with the subdivision regarding the one judge/one family model,
new rule 12.003 also codifies the procedures to be followed if it is “impractical”
for one judge to handle all related family cases. Subdivision (a)(2) of rule 12.003
provides that the judges assigned to hear each related family case or cases may
confer with each other for the purposes of case management and coordination.
This is another important rule that will ensure that case management and
coordination are conducted in a more formal manner between the judges.
We have, however, revised the Steering Committee’s proposal to incorporate
language proposed by the Family Law Rules Committee, allowing the court or the
party who filed the Notice of Related Cases to coordinate a case management
conference to: (1) consolidate as many issues as is practical to be heard by one
judge; (2) coordinate the progress of remaining issues in order to facilitate the
- 13 -
resolution of pending actions and avoid inconsistent rulings; (3) determine the
attendance and participation of minor children in the proceedings; and (4)
determine the access of the parties to court records if a related case is confidential
pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420.
Together with the other new provisions for a more uniform way of handling
related cases, new rule 12.003, subdivision (b) (Joint Hearings or Trials), allows
the court to order joint hearings or trials of any issues in related family cases. If
any such joint or coordinated hearings are ordered, the moving party, the court, or
any other party ordered by the court shall provide notice to all parties and to all
attorneys of record in each related case.
The second new Family Law Rule of Procedure we adopt addresses judicial
access and review of related family case files. Because one of the impediments to
a successful unified family court has been the question of accessing related files,
new Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.004 (Judicial Access and Review of
Related Family Files), subdivision (a) (In General), authorizes a judge hearing a
family case to access and review the files of any related case, whether pending or
closed. Authorized court staff is also permitted to access and review related family
case files. The Steering Committee indicates that this rule will complement a
judge’s ability to coordinate related family cases.
- 14 -
Additionally, subdivision (b) of rule 12.004 (Family Case Defined) defines a
related family case as another pending or closed family case, as that term is defined
in Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d); subdivision (c) of rule 12.004
(Nondisclosure of Confidential Information) precludes judges or authorized court
personnel from disclosing confidential information and documents in related
family case files except in accordance with applicable state and federal
confidentiality laws; and subdivision (d) of rule 12.004 (Notice by Court Staff)
provides that authorized court staff may advise the court of related legal
proceedings, the legal issues involved, and administrative information about such
cases.
The third new Family Law Rule of Procedure we adopt codifies procedures
already existing but not uniform. New rule 12.006 (Filing Copies of Orders in
Related Family Cases) provides that the court may file copies of court orders in
related family cases involving the same parties. This rule will help to ensure that
the files in each of the related family cases contain copies of relevant and
appropriate orders, which will reduce the possibility that judges will enter
conflicting orders in the related cases.
The fourth new rule addresses another identified impediment to the effective
implementation of the unified family court model, which is the fact that records
might be confidential in one family case but not in a related family case. Although
- 15 -
many judges have adopted procedures to handle these issues, the Steering
Committee determined that it would be preferable to codify the procedures in a
rule. New Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.007 (Access and Review of Related
Family Files by Parties) therefore addresses confidential files in related family
cases.
We have revised the Steering Committee’s proposal in subdivision (a) of
rule 12.007 (In General) to provide that access to confidential files in related cases
shall not be granted except as authorized by Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.420. We have also revised subdivision (b) of rule 12.007
(Confidentiality of Address) to clarify that, when a petitioner for a domestic
violence injunction requests that his or her address be kept confidential, this
information is exempt from the public records provisions of section 119.07(1),
Florida Statutes, and article I, section 24(a), of the Florida Constitution, and is a
confidential court record pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d).
Subdivision (c) of rule 12.007 (Disclosure Prohibited) provides that disclosure by
parties of confidential information and documents in related family case files is
prohibited, except in accordance with state and federal confidentiality statutes.
Finally, new Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.271 (Confidentiality of
Related Family Hearings) pertains to confidentiality of joint or coordinated
hearings in related family cases. Subdivision (a) of rule 12.271 (Confidentiality of
- 16 -
Coordinated or Joint Hearings) requires that, when related family cases are
coordinated or joint hearings ordered, the hearings or proceedings involving more
than one related family case are subject to the applicable state and federal
confidentiality statutes pertaining to each case as if it were heard separately.
Additionally, subdivision (b) of rule 12.271 (No Waiver) provides that the
confidentiality of a case or issue is not waived by coordination or joint hearings.
CONCLUSION
We thank the Steering Committee for its continued diligent work in
developing and improving the unified family court model. Through the proposed
rule amendments, the Steering Committee has assisted the Court in furthering its
ultimate goal to create a fully integrated, comprehensive approach to handling all
cases involving families and children. We also wish to thank the Family Law
Section and the Family Law Rules Committee for their support of the unified
family court model and for helpful input and suggestions regarding the proposed
rule amendments.
Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and the
Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure as set forth in the appendix to this opinion.
New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-
through type. The amendments shall become effective on April 1, 2014.
It is so ordered.
- 17 -
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA,
and PERRY, JJ., concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
Original Proceedings – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and Florida
Family Law Rules of Procedure
Nikki Ann Clark, Vice-Chair, Steering Committee on Families and Children in the
Court, Tallahassee, Florida
for Petitioner
Jon Berkley Morgan, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee,
Kissimmee, Florida; Alexandra V. Rieman, Past Chair, Rules of Judicial
Administration Committee, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Mary Lou Miller Wagstaff,
Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Largo, Florida; Lori Caldwell-Carr, Past
Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Maitland, Florida; Matthew B. Capstraw,
Past Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, Longwood, Florida; John F. Harkness,
Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; Ellen J. Sloyer,
Rules Liaison, Family Law Rules Committee, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee,
Florida; Jodi Jennings, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida;
Carin M. Porras, Chair, Family Law Section, The Florida Bar, Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida; and Reuben A. Doupé of Klaus Doupé, Naples, Florida,
Responding with comments
- 18 -
APPENDIX
FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
RULE 2.545 CASE MANAGEMENT
(a) – (c) No Change
(d) Related Cases.
(1) The petitioner in a family case as defined in this rule shall file
with the court a notice of related cases in conformity with family law form
12.900(h), if related cases are known or reasonably ascertainable. A case is related
when:
(A) it involves any of the same parties, children, or issues and
it is pending at the time the party files a family case; or
(B) it affects the court’s jurisdiction to proceed; or
(C) an order in the related case may conflict with an order on
the same issues in the new case; or
(D) an order in the new case may conflict with an order in the
earlier litigation.
(2) “Family cases” include dissolution of marriage, annulment,
support unconnected with dissolution of marriage, paternity, child support, UIFSA,
custodial care of and access to children, proceedings for temporary or concurrent
custody of minor children by extended family, adoption, name change, declaratory
judgment actions related to premarital, martial, or postmarital agreements, civil
domestic, repeat violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual violence
injunctions, juvenile dependency, termination of parental rights, juvenile
delinquency, emancipation of a minor, CINS/FINS, truancy, and modification and
enforcement of orders entered in these cases.
(3) [No Change]
(4) The notice of related cases shall be filed with the initial
pleading by the filing attorney or self-represented petitioner. The notice shall be
- 19 -
filed in each of the related cases that are currently open and pending with the court
and served on all other parties in each of the related cases, and as may be directed
by the chief judge or designee. Parties may file joint notices. A notice of related
cases filed pursuant to this rule is not an appearance. If any related case is
confidential and exempt from public access by law, then a Notice of Confidential
Information Within Court Filing as required by Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.420 shall accompany the notice. Parties shall file supplemental
notices as related cases become known or reasonably ascertainable.
(5) – (6) [No Change]
(7) The notice of related cases shall be served on all parties in the
related cases, the presiding judges, and the chief judge or family law administrative
judge.
(e) [No Change]
Committee Notes
[No Change]
FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE
RULE 12.003 COORDINATION OF RELATED FAMILY CASES AND
HEARINGS
(a) Assignment to One Judge.
(1) All related family cases must be handled before one judge
unless impractical.
(2) If it is impractical for one judge to handle all related family
cases, the judges assigned to hear the related cases involving the same family
and/or children may confer for the purpose of case management and coordination
of the cases. Notice and communication shall comply with Canon 3.B.(7) of the
Code of Judicial Conduct. The party who filed the notice of related cases or the
court may coordinate a case management conference under rule 12.200 between
- 20 -
the parties and the judges hearing the related cases. In addition to the issues that
may be considered, the court shall:
(A) consolidate as many issues as is practical to be heard by
one judge;
(B) coordinate the progress of the remaining issues to
facilitate the resolution of the pending actions and to avoid inconsistent rulings;
(C) determine the attendance or participation of any minor
child in the proceedings if the related cases include a juvenile action; and
(D) determine the access of the parties to court records if a
related case is confidential pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration
2.420.
(b) Joint Hearings or Trials.
(1) The court may order joint hearings or trials of any issues in
related family cases.
(2) For joint or coordinated hearings, notice to all parties and to all
attorneys of record in each related case shall be provided by the court, the moving
party, or other party as ordered by the court, regardless of whether or not the party
providing notice is a party in every case number that will be called for hearing.
RULE 12.004 JUDICIAL ACCESS AND REVIEW OF RELATED
FAMILY FILES
(a) In General. A judge hearing a family case may access and review the
files of any related case either pending or closed, to aid in carrying out his or her
adjudicative responsibilities. Authorized court staff and personnel may also access
and review the file of any related case.
(b) Family Case Defined. For purposes of this rule, a related family case
is another pending or closed case separate from the pending case, as defined in
Rule of Judicial Administration 2.545(d).
- 21 -
(c) Nondisclosure of Confidential Information. Judges or authorized
court personnel shall not disclose confidential information and documents
contained in related case files except in accordance with applicable state and
federal confidentiality laws.
(d) Notice by Court Staff. Authorized court staff may advise the court
about the existence of related legal proceedings, the legal issues involved, and
administrative information about such cases.
RULE 12.006 FILING COPIES OF ORDERS IN RELATED FAMILY
CASES
The court may file copies of court orders in related family cases involving
the same parties. All relevant case numbers should be placed on the order and a
separate copy placed in each related case file.
RULE 12.007 ACCESS AND REVIEW OF RELATED FAMILY FILES
BY PARTIES
(a) In General. Access to confidential files in related cases shall not be
granted except as authorized by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420.
(b) Confidentiality of Address. When a petitioner for domestic violence
injunction requests that his or her address be kept confidential pursuant to section
741.30, Florida Statutes, this information is exempt from the public records
provisions of section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes and article I, section 24(a), Florida
Constitution, and is a confidential court record under Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.420(d). Persons with authorized access to confidential
information shall develop methods to ensure that the address remains confidential
as provided by law.
(c) Disclosure Prohibited. Disclosure by parties of confidential
information and documents contained in court files for related family cases, except
in accordance with applicable state and federal confidentiality statutes, is
prohibited.
- 22 -
RULE 12.271 CONFIDENTIALITY OF RELATED FAMILY
HEARINGS
(a) Confidentiality of Coordinated or Joint Hearings. When related
family cases are coordinated or joint hearings ordered, any hearings or proceedings
involving more than one related family case are subject to the applicable state and
federal confidentiality statutes pertaining to each case as if heard separately.
(b) No Waiver. The confidentiality of a case or issue is not waived by
coordination or a joint hearing.
- 23 -