Margaret Janik v. In re: The Adoption of M.D.J., etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 14, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1680
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 14, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1680 Lower Tribunal No. 1967-4205 ________________

Margaret Janik, Appellant,

vs.

In re: The Adoption of M.D.J., etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, George A. Sarduy, Judge.

Law Office of Joseph S. Shook, P.A., and Joseph S. Shook, for appellant.

No Appearance, for appellee.

Before SCALES, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.

SCALES, J. Appellant Margaret Janik seeks appellate review of an August 22, 2023

trial court order denying, without elaboration, her petition that sought the

release of information from the confidential adoption file of her adopted son

Michael Janik. Appellant and her late husband adopted Michael in Florida in

1967. To obtain the information, Appellant filed a July 7, 2023 Petition for

Adoption Information in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, pursuant to

section 63.162(4)(b) of the Florida Statutes.

The statute provides for the disclosure of certain adoption information

“upon order of the court for good cause shown.” § 63.162(4)(b), Fla. Stat.

(2023). Section 63.162(4)(b) lists five criteria for determining whether good

cause exists.1 Michael desired confidential information about his birth mother

1 The five criteria are as follows:

1. The reason the information is sought;

2. The existence of means available to obtain the desired information without disclosing the identity of the birth parents, such as by having the court, a person appointed by the court, the department, or the licensed child-placing agency contact the birth parents and request specific information;

3. The desires, to the extent known, of the adoptee, the adoptive parents, and the birth parents;

4. The age, maturity, judgment, and expressed needs of the adoptee; and

2 in order to prove his entitlement to heirship after his birth mother – whose

identity he knew since childhood – died intestate in Texas in 2021. Appellant

maintains that good cause is evident in this instance and that the trial court’s

denial of the petition constitutes an abuse of discretion. See In re Adoption

of Rand, 347 So. 2d 450, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“The trial court abuses its

discretion . . . when . . . it refuses to release the requested information

although good cause is shown[.]”).

Our record indicates, however, that Appellant did not obtain a

recommendation from the Florida Department of Children and Families2 (or

another relevant entity) on the advisability of disclosure, as required by

section 63.162(4)(b)5. (See infra n.1). Nor does it appear that Appellant gave

notice of hearing to the department, as required by section 63.162(2), which

provides: “In the case of an adoption not handled by the department or a

child-placing agency licensed by the department, the department must be

5. The recommendation of the department, licensed child-placing agency, or professional that prepared the preliminary study and home investigation, or the department if no such study was prepared, concerning the advisability of disclosure.

§ 63.162(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023). 2 Section 63.032(9) defines “department” as the Florida Department of Children and Families. § 63.032(9), Fla. Stat. (2023). Our record, including Appellant’s briefing, is sparse as to the circumstances of the 1967 adoption.

3 given notice of hearing and be permitted to present to the court a report on

the advisability of disclosing or not disclosing information pertaining to the

adoption.” § 63.162(2), Fla. Stat. (2023); see A.D. v. M.D.M., 920 So. 2d 857,

860 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Section 63.162(2) provides that confidential

information may be released from the adoption file by court order. However,

in order to obtain such information, M.D.M. was required to serve the

Department of Children and Families with notice of the hearing requesting

release of information.”).

Because there is no evident basis in our record that the trial court

abused its discretion in denying the petition, we affirm without prejudice to

Appellant filing another petition consistent with the requirements of sections

63.162(2) and 63.162(4)(b).

Affirmed.