Miami Herald Media Co. v. S.-P,D.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miami Herald Media Co. v. S.-P,D.

961 So. 2d 988, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9969, 2007 WL 1827221

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 2007

DocketNo. 3D07-1111

StatusPublished

This text of 961 So. 2d 988 (Miami Herald Media Co. v. S.-P,D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miami Herald Media Co. v. S.-P,D., 961 So. 2d 988, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9969, 2007 WL 1827221 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, Miami Herald Media Company, seeks an emergency writ of cer-tiorari quashing an order of the trial court that denies the Herald access to closed court proceedings. We grant the petition and quash the order under review.

On April 20, 2006, the trial court closed all proceedings in this dependency proceeding at the request of the temporary legal custodians and the Guardian Ad Li-tem “without prejudice to the Court’s consideration of any Motion for Access which may hereafter be filed.” In March, 2007, the Herald determined to challenge the order, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on the need for continued closure. After considering all of the evidence, the court concluded that the proceeding should remain closed.

Under Florida law, the trial court “may close any [dependency] hearing to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing.” § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). However, such a determination must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Hembree v. Thomas, 906 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(“A trial court’s decision relating to [the best interest of the child] and to the modification of custody must be based on factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence.”). See also R.F. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families (In the Interest of M.F.), 770 So.2d 1189, 1192 (Fla.2000)(“A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.”). The evidence presented to the trial court fails to satisfy this requirement.

We quash the order of the trial court without prejudice.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, Miami Herald Media Company, seeks an emergency writ of cer-tiorari quashing an order of the trial court that denies the Herald access to closed court proceedings. We grant the petition and quash the order under review.

On April 20, 2006, the trial court closed all proceedings in this dependency proceeding at the request of the temporary legal custodians and the Guardian Ad Li-tem “without prejudice to the Court’s consideration of any Motion for Access which may hereafter be filed.” In March, 2007, the Herald determined to challenge the order, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on the need for continued closure. After considering all of the evidence, the court concluded that the proceeding should remain closed.

Under Florida law, the trial court “may close any [dependency] hearing to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing.” § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). However, such a determination must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Hembree v. Thomas, 906 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(“A trial court’s decision relating to [the best interest of the child] and to the modification of custody must be based on factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence.”). See also R.F. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families (In the Interest of M.F.), 770 So.2d 1189, 1192 (Fla.2000)(“A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.”). The evidence presented to the trial court fails to satisfy this requirement.

We quash the order of the trial court without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 So. 2d 988, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9969, 2007 WL 1827221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miami-herald-media-co-v-s-pd-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack