Case Title: In Re Report of Comm'n on Family Cts.

Citation: 588 So. 2d 586

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1991-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
588 So. 2d 586 (1991)
IN RE REPORT OF the COMMISSION ON FAMILY COURTS.
No. 77623.

Supreme Court of Florida.
September 12, 1991.
Rehearing Denied November 19, 1991.
James R. Stewart, Jr., Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, *587 Ira Abrams, Chairman, Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, Miami, and Marjorie Head, Plantation, on behalf of the Broward County Coalition for Judicial Awareness, for petitioners.
Dale Ross, Chief Judge, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort Lauderdale, Lori Parrish, Chairman, Broward County Comm'rs, Fort Lauderdale, and Paul A. Louis of Sinclair, Louis, Siegel, Heath, Nussbaum & Zavertnik, Miami, in Opposition.
OVERTON, Justice.
This cause is before the Court on the Report of the Commission on Family Courts (Commission). The Commission was established by the legislature in chapter 90-273, Laws of Florida. That legislation directed the Commission to: (1) develop specific guidelines for the implementation of a family law division within each judicial circuit; (2) provide recommendations for statutory, rule and organizational changes; and (3) recommend necessary support services.
The following recommendations were made by the Commission:
The legislature has the authority to require a study of the need for a family division pursuant to article III, section 7, of the Florida Constitution. This Court has jurisdiction to establish a family division in accordance with the provisions of article V, section 20(c)(10), of the Florida Constitution, (now section 43.30, Florida Statutes (1989)); article V, section 2, of the Florida Constitution; and the policy decision made by the legislature in chapter 90-273, Laws of Florida, directing the development of
Ch. 90-273, § 10(3), Laws of Fla.
The Commission was created in part because of reports of various entities which had recommended a family division or a family court in this state, including: (a) the Governor's Constituency for Children; (b) Florida Task Force on Marriage and the Family Unit, Florida State University Governmental Law Center and Institute for Social Research; (c) the Task Force on the Future of the Florida Family; (d) the Supreme Court Committee on the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Nonlawyer Counselors; (e) committees of The Florida Bar and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; (f) the Metropolitan Court Judges Committee; and (g) the Study Commission on Child Welfare.
The Commission received testimony from those involved with the operation and administration of family divisions in circuits that presently have successful family divisions, as well as from individuals who were familiar with the unsuccessful family division in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The Commission also considered testimony from representatives of other groups that had examined and recommended the establishment of a family division, including the Florida Judicial Council Subcommittee on Family Courts, The Florida Bar's Family Law Committee, and the Governor's Constituency for Children. Although these groups recommended the establishment of a family division, they differed on the extent of the jurisdiction of such a division. All of them agree that dissolution, custody, visitation relief, property, URESA, name change, paternity, adoption, and domestic violence should be within the family division. However, The Florida Bar Commission for Children, and the Governor's Constituency for Children would also include juvenile delinquency and dependency jurisdiction. The Governor's Constituency for Children would extend the jurisdiction even further to include probate, guardianship, and trust proceedings.
In its recommendations, the Commission took a middle ground approach and recommended that, while it would not mandate the inclusion of juvenile dependency and delinquency proceedings, each circuit should consider the inclusion of those jurisdictions for administrative purposes. The Commission emphasized the need to have all current family matters assigned to one judge.
*591 We approve the recommendations of the Commission on Family Courts, and we accept the Commission's recommendation concerning the jurisdiction of a family division. We emphasize our support for the recommendation that there be a means to assign all family court matters that affect one family, including dissolution of marriage, custody, juvenile dependency and delinquency proceedings, to one judge. In approving these recommendations, we note the need for each circuit to design a family division to best serve its particular area. Geography, population, and available facilities are all factors that must be considered in tailoring a family division to the needs of a particular circuit.
We agree that the assignment of a judge to family law cases is one of the most difficult and stressful of all the responsibilities of a circuit judge. Consequently, we acknowledge that there is a need for rotation among judges assigned to the family division. For such a division to work, judges must be committed to carrying out this judicial responsibility and willing to participate in education and training programs in this area of the law.
Family law is a developing and expanding area of court jurisdiction. As noted in the Commission's report, approximately fifty percent of the civil court jurisdiction in our circuit courts, without the inclusion of juvenile delinquency and dependency cases, is comprised of family law matters. New techniques are regularly being implemented to try to make this jurisdiction of our courts work more effectively. Further, we recognize that delays in family law matters aggravate the parties' problems. Clearly, an early resolution is best for all concerned. We believe that implementing the Commission's recommendations will benefit the public by expediting the resolution of family law matters.
We reject the arguments that family divisions will not accomplish the desired results and may impede fair and unbiased handling of family matters. We also reject the claim that so-called specialists in the field of family law will have an unfair advantage in a family division. Presently, five out of the twenty circuits in this state have family divisions, and no evidence was presented to the Commission that those circuits have these alleged problems.
We hold that each judicial circuit should develop a local rule establishing a family division in its circuit or a means to coordinate family law matters that affect one family if the circuit or part of the circuit is of such a limited size that it is unable to administratively justify such a division, and direct that such a local rule be filed with this Court on or before January 6, 1992.[1]
In accepting these recommendations, we emphasize to the legislature that these family divisions cannot operate effectively without appropriate state support. The creation of a family division will not be a panacea for all family law problems. To leave it to each local government to fund the necessary services for a family division is a prescription for inequality in the family services available to the citizens of this state and possible failure of the family law divisions. In order for a family division to operate effectively, it needs: (1) court-connected mediation services; (2) home assessment services for custody cases; (3) sufficient staff to coordinate the family division operation; and (4) sufficient staff to operate enforcement of support services. These are services that this Court cannot mandate a local government to provide. In some circuits, these services are being provided because of the local government's desire to provide better service for its citizens.
Recognizing that funds are not now available, we request each circuit, in formulating its local rule, to develop its plan in accordance with presently available local resources. Each circuit should also develop an appropriate plan for its jurisdiction *592 as if the family division were properly funded by the state.
In conclusion, we believe that the creation of family divisions will provide a better means for resolution of family issues in this state, and we ask the judiciary and the legal profession to cooperate in implementing these divisions where they presently do not exist.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and BARKETT, GRIMES and HARDING, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which KOGAN, J., concurs.
McDONALD, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Because the report and opinion mandated a family division in all populous circuits, I dissent in part.[2] If each circuit had the option of either establishing a family division or, in the alternative, submitting a workable plan for the handling of family matters, I would concur. I believe it better to leave the decision to each circuit as to whether a separate family division would be required. Should it be shown that alternative methods of handling family matters are inefficient, inequitable, more costly, or have greater problems than those utilizing a family division, I would review the plan and experiences of that circuit to then determine whether a separate family division is mandated.
I fail to see any reason or justification for placing juvenile delinquency with family courts. Juvenile dependency is a closer question.
KOGAN, J., concurs.
[1]  As the Commission emphasized in its commentary, the needs of a particular circuit are extremely important in developing such a rule.
[2]  I hasten to add that I join all in seeking a fair, efficient, timely, and cost-effective method of resolving all problems arising from family relationships.