In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure

725 So. 2d 296, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1812, 1998 WL 646859
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 18, 1998
DocketNo. 93,758
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 296 (In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 725 So. 2d 296, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1812, 1998 WL 646859 (Fla. 1998).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have before us an emergency petition of The Florida Bar Juvenile Court Rules Committee (“the Committee”) to amend the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure to conform to statutory changes that become effective October 1, 1998.1 Chapter 98-403, Laws of Florida, substantially reorganizes and amends Chapter 39, Florida Statutes (“Proceedings Relating to Children”), especially in regard to dependency and termination of parental rights proceedings. For example, Chapter 98-403, section 23, Laws of Florida, amends section 39.40, Florida Statutes (1997), renumbering it as section 39.013, to provide that at each stage of Chapter 39 proceedings, the court shall advise specified persons of the right to counsel, and addresses the appointment of counsel in cases of indigency. The 1998 statutory changes also require that any order placing a child in shelter care must contain certain written findings, such as a finding that the court notified the parents or legal custodians of the subsequent dependency proceedings, including scheduled hearings, and of the importance of the active participation of the parents or legal custodians in those subsequent proceedings and hearings. See ch. 98^103, § 58, Laws of Fla. (amending section 39.402(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), to appear as section 39.402(8)©).

We find that the majority of the Committee’s proposed amendments are necessary to conform with the 1998 statutory changes, as reflected in the amended versions of rule 8.201(a); rule 8.210(a); rule 8.215(c); rule 8.225(a)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4)(D); rule 8.245(a)(1); rule 8.250(b); rule 8.290(a)(1); rule 8.305(a), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6)(D), (b)(7)-(9), (c)(3), and (c)(6)-(7); rule 8.310(a)(2) and (a)(4)-(5); rule 8.315(d); rule 8.320(a)(l)-(2); rule 8.325(a)-(c); rule 8.340(a) and (c)(5)-(6); rule 8.345(b); rule 8.400(a), (a)(2), (a)(3)(B), and (c); rule 8.410(a), (b)(3)-(4), (c), and (e); rule 8.415(a)-©; rule 8.505(a)(2), (a)(7), and (b); rule 8.510(a)(3) and (b); rule 8.515(a)(2) and (a)(4)-(5); rule 8.520(d); rule 8.525(i)(A); and rule 8.535(c). We accordingly adopt the Committee’s proposed amendments to these rules (with minor modifications to more closely track the language in the 1998 statutory changes) as set forth in the appendix to this opinion.

We further note that the Committee has also taken this opportunity to clarify and correct certain rules in ways not necessitated by the 1998 statutory changes. For example, the Committee proposes deleting all references to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (“HRS”), which was abolished several years ago. See, for example, the amended versions of rules 8.255(a) and 8.305(d). Similarly, the Committee proposes striking outdated language regarding treatment plans, disposition hearings, and the representation of HRS by the state attorney’s office in dependency matters. See the existing versions of rules 8.340(c), 8.530, and 8.310(a)(5), respectively.

The Committee further proposes combining several of the rules concerning participation (or lack thereof) in the preparation of case plans, thus allowing for the complete deletion of existing rule 8.405. Also, although not mandated by any specific portion of the 1998 statutory changes, the Committee proposes deleting existing rule 8.245(a)(3), regarding reciprocal discovery entitlements of petitioners, to foster the goal of promoting liberal discovery early in the proceeding in order to facilitate meaningful mediation and case negotiations.

[297]*297We adopt, without comment, the majority of the Committee’s proposed clarifying and corrective amendments, as reflected in the amended versions of rule 8.000; rule 8.225(a)(3), (a)(3)(C), and (a)(4)(A)(iv); rule 8.240(b); rule 8.245(b)(2), (e)(2)(D), and (c)(3)(B); rule 8.255(a) and (c); rule 8.305(d); rule 8.310(a)(5); rule 8.330(a), (c), and (g); rule 8.340(c); and rule 8.500(a)(2), (b)(3), and (g)(2). We find, however, that the following proposed rule amendments are neither mandated by the 1998 statutory changes nor merely clarifying or corrective, and therefore decline to adopt them on an emergency basis at this time.

First, the Committee proposes striking from existing rule 8.205(b) the clause “when a stipulation under rule 8.325(d) has been accepted.” The proposed striking of this language is not mandated by the 1998 statutory changes, is otherwise unexplained by the Committee, and may be substantive in nature.

Second, the Committee proposes inserting into existing rule 8.210(b) the clause “providers under contract with the department for foster care and related services.” Again, the proposed addition of this language is not specifically mandated by the 1998 statutory changes. Additionally, this clause appears superfluous, as it presumably falls within the subsequent “catch all” language in the rule allowing the participation of “any other person whose participation may be in the best interest of the child.” We therefore decline to adopt this proposed amendment. However, we adopt the remaining proposed amendment to rule 8.210(b) that adds the words “or caregivers,” finding such amendment to be mandated by the 1998 statutory changes.

Third, the Committee proposes striking the clause in existing rule 8.345(a), “the parent, guardian, or any interested person,” and replacing it with the words “any party.” Again, this change is not mandated by the 1998 statutory changes and the Committee offers no explanation for it. Furthermore, the proposed replacement language is more restrictive than the existing language (i.e., the words “any party” do not necessarily include “any interested person”). We therefore decline to adopt this proposed amendment. However, we adopt the remaining proposed amendment to rule 8.345(a), which deletes a reference to HRS.

Fourth, the Committee proposes striking language at ‘ the end of existing rule 8.400(a)(1) that reads “which shall include but not be limited to the attorney representing the department, the department counsel- or, the parent(s), counsel for the parent, if represented, the guardian ad litem, and, when appropriate, the child.” Again, the proposed striking of this language is not mandated by the 1998 statutory changes, no explanation is contained for its deletion, and we are reluctant to strike it. We therefore decline to adopt this proposed amendment. However, we adopt the remaining proposed amendments to 8.400(a)(1) regarding the filing of a current ease plan prepared in conference by certain specified persons, finding such rule amendments to track the 1998 statutory changes.

Finally, the Committee proposes adding to the end of existing rule 8.520(d) the clause “unless excused by the court for good cause shown.” Again, the proposed addition of this language is not contained within the 1998 statutory changes and is not otherwise explained by the Committee. In declining to adopt this clause, we express no opinion as to whether or not the courts otherwise possess the authority to excuse a nonappearance for good cause shown. We adopt the remaining proposed amendments to rule 8.520(d) regarding personal appearance, finding that such amendments track the language of the 1998 statutory changes. See ch. 98-403, § 83, Laws of Fla. (amending section 39.462(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), and renumbering it as section 39.801(3)(d)).

In closing, we note that due to the necessity of adopting these rules to coincide with the October 1,1998, effective date of the 1998 statutory changes, there was insufficient time for our normal procedure of publishing the proposed rule amendments in The Florida Bar News

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

GLS v. Dept. of Children and Families
724 So. 2d 1181 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
725 So. 2d 296, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 493, 1998 Fla. LEXIS 1812, 1998 WL 646859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-juvenile-procedure-fla-1998.