DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

YOUTH AND FAMILY ALTERNATIVES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

D.T., a child, by and through his permanent guardian, D.T. 2,

Appellee.

No. 2D2022-4168

May 10, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Sharpe Byrd, 

Judge.

Dorothy Venable DiFiore of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., 

Tampa, and Lisa J. Augspurger and Allison E. Bunker of Bush & 

Augspurger, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Lelia M. M. Schleier and Stacie J. Schmerling of Justice for Kids, Ft. 

Lauderdale, for Appellee.

John M. Jackson and Andrew McGinley of Department of Children and 

Families, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae The Florida Department of 

Children and Families. 

James B. Lake of Thomas & LoCicero PL, Tampa; Robin L. Rosenberg of 

Florida's Children First, Inc., Coral Springs; Stephanie A. Johnson of 

Legal Services of North Florida, Tallahassee; and Robert Latham of 

Children & Youth Law Clinic, Coral Gables for Amici Curiae Florida's 

Children First, Inc., Legal Services of North Florida, Inc., University of 
2

Miami Children and Youth Law Clinic, Public Interest Law Section of The 

Florida Bar, and First Amendment Foundation, Inc. 

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

The order under review granted a writ of mandamus compelling

Youth and Family Alternatives, Inc. (YFA), to produce to D.T. all emails

and text messages regarding him or his dependency case without charge. 

We reverse.

1

The parties' dispute emanates from a dependency proceeding that 

began in 2019, when a child abuse allegation led to D.T.'s removal from 

his mother's home and placement in the care of the Department of 

Children and Families. YFA performed D.T.'s foster care and case 

management services under a contract with Eckerd Youth Alternatives, 

Inc., the department's lead community-based care provider in Pasco 

County.

In 2021, through his permanent guardian, D.T. sent YFA a letter

requesting a copy of D.T.'s entire physical and electronic case file to be 

furnished at no cost. The letter specified that the request encompassed, 

among other things, "[a]ll emails regarding the child's case and/or the 

child," and "[a]ll text messages to/from YFA employees regarding the 

child's case and/or the child." YFA generally complied, producing the 

requested items save for emails and texts. It offered to furnish the 

emails and texts upon payment of the estimated costs for both retrieving 

them and for a paralegal to review them before providing them. 

1 This court previously dismissed the portion of YFA's appeal 

seeking review of the circuit court's nonfinal ruling that D.T. was entitled 

to recover costs and fees. See Castaldi v. Castaldi, 968 So. 2d 713, 714 

(Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that a portion of the appeal which 

challenged a ruling that determined entitlement but not amount of an 

award of fees should be dismissed as nonfinal and nonreviewable).
3

D.T. rejected YFA's offer. Instead, he petitioned the circuit court for 

a writ of mandamus, maintaining that YFA has a legal duty to provide 

the contested items to him without charge. The circuit court agreed, 

ruling that D.T. is entitled to receive "a complete and accurate copy of 

any record in his case record, and all records generated as a result of 

child abuse or neglect reports at no cost; which include all emails and all 

text messages regarding the Petitioner's dependency case and/or the 

Petitioner." This was error.

A writ of mandamus may be issued only when the petitioner has a 

"clear legal right" to the requested relief, the respondent has "an 

indisputable legal duty" to perform the requested action, and the 

petitioner has no other adequate remedy. Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 

10, 11 (Fla. 2000). When, as in this case, entitlement to mandamus 

relief turns on an interpretation of law, we review the lower court's ruling 

de novo. See Villa Bellini Ristorante & Lounge, Inc. v. Mancini, 283 So. 3d 

972, 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (citing Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs Broward Cnty. 

Fla. v. Parrish, 154 So. 3d 412, 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)).

The circuit court posited that YFA's legal duty to furnish the 

subject material free of charge can be found in two statutes and two 

administrative rules promulgated by the department. However, those 

provisions neither grant D.T. a clear legal right to obtain nor impose on 

YFA an indisputable duty to furnish free copies of emails or text 

messages simply because they relate to D.T. or his dependency case.

2

Rather, such materials must be provided without charge only if they are 

retained by the department in the child's case record.

2 The question here is whether production of the subject emails and 

texts is required at no cost to D.T. Thus, we do not consider or discuss 

whether or to what extent D.T. possesses a general right to obtain

materials at his cost.
4

Under section 39.00145(1), Florida Statutes (2021), cited by the 

circuit court, a "case record" must be kept for every child who is under 

the supervision or in the care of the department or its authorized 

providers such as YFA. The case record "must be maintained in a 

complete and accurate manner," but the statute offers scant direction 

about its contents, requiring only that it contain "at a minimum" the 

child's case plan and the names and addresses of specified providers 

involved in the child's care and placement. Id. 

Per subsection (2) of section 39.00145, the "records in a child's 

case record" must be made available, and copies thereof must be 

provided upon request and at no cost, to the child and to the child's 

caregiver, guardian ad litem, or attorney. Thus, the department and its 

providers are obligated by statute to give the child free copies only of 

matters in his case record—which is not statutorily required to contain 

emails or texts related to the child or dependency case.

As implied by the statute's specification of the "minimum" contents 

of a case record, the legislature left it to the department to determine 

whether and what additional information should be included. Indeed, in 

another statute, section 39.0121, the legislature expressly gave the 

department authority to do so:

[T]he department is specifically authorized to adopt, amend, 

and repeal administrative rules which implement or interpret 

law or policy, or describe the procedure and practice 

requirements necessary to implement this chapter, including, 

but not limited to, the following: 

. . . .

(3) Confidentiality and retention of department records; 

access to records; and record requests.
5

Id.

But the circuit court's reliance on two department rules in support 

of its ruling was mistaken. In Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C15.031(3) (2016), the department has detailed what must be included in 

a child's "case file"—a term the rule employs interchangeably with the 

term "case record." The list specifies a number of documents and 

categories of information that must be retained in the case record. But

contrary to the circuit court's assertion, it does not require the inclusion 

of emails or text messages regarding the child or the child's dependency 

case.3

3 Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-15.031(3) states:

(3) The following information shall be contained in each file:

(a) Demographic information including the name,

address, social security number, sex, religion, race, 

birth date, and birth place of the child;

(b) The name, address, telephone number, social 

security numbers, and marital status of the parents 

or guardians of the child;

(c) The name, address, and telephone number of 

siblings if placed elsewhere and other significant 

relatives, if available;

(d) Copies of legal documents of importance to the 

type of care, such as birth record and any court 

dispositions;

(e) The medical history, which shall include, if 

available, cumulative health records, addresses of 

all health care providers who provided treatment, 

examination or consultation regarding the child, as 

well as all psychological and psychiatric reports;

(f) The social assessment and background of the 

family and parents;

(g) A summary which reflects the dates of contact, 

initial assessment, case plan, and content of the 

worker's visits;
6

The other rule relied on by the circuit court, Florida Administrative 

Code Rule 65C-30.001(12) (2021), defines the term "case file" to mean 

"all information for a case contained in the Department's comprehensive 

child welfare information system (CCWIS), i.e., Florida Safe Families 

Network (FSFN), as well as the supporting documentation gathered 

during provision of services to that family." It does not require the 

department or a provider such as YFA to deposit all emails and text 

messages regarding a child or his case into the CCWIS or to furnish them 

free of charge to the child.

Finally, the circuit court's citation to section 39.202 simply has no 

bearing here. That statute provides that department records concerning 

reports of child abandonment, abuse, or neglect are exempt from 

disclosure under Florida's public records law, and it prohibits their 

disclosure except as specified in the statute. Among the listed exceptions 

is a provision permitting access to such records by the child, his parent 

(h) The circumstances leading to the decision of 

the parents to place the child, the agency's 

involvement with the parents, including services 

offered, delivered, or rejected;

(i) Educational records and reports, if applicable;

(j) Summary of case reviews which reflect the 

contacts with and the status of all family members 

in relation to the case plan, as well as the 

achievements or changes in the goals;

(k) Summary of any administrative or outside 

service reviews on the progress of each child toward 

goal determination;

(l) Summary of child's contacts with family 

members which reflect the quality of the 

relationships and the way the child is coping with 

the family members; and,

(m) A record of the child's placements with names 

of caregivers, addresses, and the dates of care.
7

or legal custodian, and his attorneys. § 39.202(2)(d). The statute does 

not require the department to give free copies of anything to the child.

In sum, no authority imposes on YFA a legal duty to furnish to D.T. 

copies of any material without charge unless it is contained in the case 

record maintained for him pursuant to section 39.00145. The circuit 

court's directive to furnish additional materials simply because they 

relate to D.T. or his dependency case was error. On remand the court 

shall enter an order denying D.T.'s petition.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

KHOUZAM and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.