Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC18-1554

____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL 

ADMINISTRATION—PARENTAL LEAVE.

December 19, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJA 

Committee) has submitted, for the Court’s consideration, new Florida Rule of 

Judicial Administration 2.570 (Parental-Leave Continuance). See Fla. R. Jud. 

Admin. 2.140(f)(1). We have jurisdiction1 and adopt a modified version of the

parental-leave continuance rule that was submitted.

BACKGROUND

At the Court’s request, the RJA Committee submitted a draft parental-leave 

continuance rule for the Court’s consideration. New rule 2.570, as drafted by the 

Committee, provided that a court must grant a motion for continuance based on the 

 

1. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
- 2 -

parental leave of a lead attorney, if the motion is made within a reasonable time of 

certain events, unless another party demonstrates substantial prejudice. The draft 

rule also provided three months as the presumptive maximum length of a 

continuance granted under the rule. A majority of the RJA Committee opposed the 

adoption of a parental-leave continuance rule, while a minority of the Committee

supported the adoption of the draft rule. The Board of Governors of The Florida 

Bar also supported the adoption of the draft rule.

Before the RJA Committee submitted the draft rule to the Court, the 

Committee received one comment opposing the rule, two comments supporting the 

rule, and one comment from the Juvenile Court Rules Committee opposing 

application of the rule in juvenile proceedings. After the Committee submitted the 

draft new rule to the Court, the Court published the rule for comment. The 

majority of the comments received by the Court strongly support the adoption of 

the new rule. One attorney filed a comment opposing the adoption of a parentalleave continuance rule. The Department of Children and Families (DCF), the 

Statewide Guardian ad Litem Program (GAL), and the Florida Public Defender 

Association, Inc. (FPDA) filed comments opposing the application of the draft rule 

in criminal, juvenile, and dependency proceedings.

In its response to the comments, the RJA Committee offered a revised rule 

that exempts criminal, juvenile, and involuntary civil commitment of sexually 
- 3 -

violent predator cases from the requirements of the rule and provides that a motion 

for a continuance based on parental leave in those types of cases is governed by 

rule 2.545(e) (Continuances) and by any applicable rule of procedure governing 

those proceedings. The revised rule further requires the court to use existing 

discretion to provide a reasonable accommodation when a parental-leave 

continuance is requested in an exempt proceeding. The Board of Governors 

approved the revised rule by a vote of 36-1. After the Court published the revised 

rule, FPDA filed a comment supporting the revised rule and DCF filed a comment 

stating it has no objection to the revised rule. The Juvenile Court Rules Committee 

filed a comment stating the revisions to the rule are acceptable, but it objects to the 

use of the term “lead attorney” in the revised rule. The attorney who opposed the 

original draft of the rule filed a comment opposing the revised rule. The GAL 

opposes the revised rule because of concerns that the added language about a court 

exercising discretion to reasonably accommodate a parental-leave request could 

result in unauthorized delays in dependency cases.

After considering the RJA Committee’s revisions to the rule, the 

Committee’s majority and minority positions, the Board of Governors’ strong 

support of a parental-leave continuance rule, and the other comments filed with the 

Court, and having heard oral argument, we adopt new rule 2.570, with several 

modifications.
- 4 -

As adopted, subdivision (a) of new rule 2.570 requires that absent a finding 

of one or more of the reasons listed in the rule, a court must grant a timely motion 

for continuance based on the parental leave of the movant’s lead attorney, due to 

the birth or adoption of a child, if the motion is made within a reasonable time after 

the later of the movant’s lead attorney learning of the basis of the continuance, or 

the setting of the proceeding(s) or the scheduling of the matter(s) for which a 

continuance is sought. Subdivision (b) of the new rule sets forth the requirements 

for the motion. Subdivision (c) of the rule provides the presumptive three-month 

maximum length of a continuance granted under the rule. Subdivision (d) of the 

rule addresses the burden of proof. Subdivision (e) of the rule addresses the 

court’s discretion to deny the motion or to grant a continuance different in scope or 

duration than requested. That subdivision also requires the court to enter a written 

order setting forth its ruling and the specific grounds for the ruling. Subdivision (f) 

of the rule exempts criminal, juvenile, and involuntary civil commitment of 

sexually violent predator cases from the requirements of the new rule and provides 

that a motion for a parental-leave continuance in those types of cases is governed 

by rule 2.545(e) (Continuances) and any applicable rule of procedure. That 

subdivision further provides that in juvenile dependency and termination of 

parental rights proceedings, a motion for a parental-leave continuance is governed 

by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.240(d) (Continuances and Extensions of 
- 5 -

Time). Finally, in light of the modifications to the RJA Committee’s revised rule, 

we have omitted the suggested committee note.

Accordingly, we adopt new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.570,

as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. The new rule shall become effective 

January 1, 2020, at 12:01 a.m. The Court thanks the RJA Committee, the Board of 

Governors of The Florida Bar, and all those who submitted comments for assisting 

the Court in crafting the new parental-leave continuance rule.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., 

concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

Josephine Gagliardi, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration, Fort Myers, Florida, 

and Eduardo I. Sánchez, Past Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration, Miami, 

Florida; and Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Mikalla Davis, Bar Liaison, 

The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

Catherine Cole of Katz & Doorakian Law Firm, West Palm Beach, Florida; 

Theodore F. Greene, III, of Law Office of Theodore F. Greene, LC; Orlando, 

Florida; Glen Gifford, on behalf of Florida Defender Public Defender Association, 

Inc., Tallahassee, Florida; Tara Scott Lynn of Law Office of Tara J. Scott PA,

Oldsmar, Florida; Jane West of Jane West Law, P.L., St. Augustine, Florida; Erin 

L. Deady of Erin L. Deady, P.A., Delray Beach, Florida; Stephanie C. 

Zimmerman, on behalf of Department of Children and Families – Children’s Legal 

Services, Bradenton, Florida; Kimberly Kanoff Berman of Marshall Dennehey 

Warner Coleman & Goggin, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; David R. Bear of Marshall 
- 6 -

Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Orlando, Florida; Abbe Sheila Rifkin, on 

behalf of Board of Directors, Broward County Women Lawyers Association, Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida; Michelle Renee Suskauer, West Palm Beach, Florida, John M. 

Stewart, Vero Beach, Florida, Joshua E. Doyle, Tallahassee, Florida, and Christian 

George, on behalf of The Florida Board of Governors and Young Lawyers 

Division of The Florida Bar, Jacksonville, Florida; Amanda R. Jesteadt and Christa 

L. McCann on behalf of Florida Association for Women Lawyers, Palm Beach 

County, West Palm Beach, Florida; Jennifer Shoaf Richardson on behalf of Florida 

Association of Women Lawyers, Jacksonville, Florida, and Kyleen Hinkle on 

behalf of Florida Association of Women Lawyers, Ormond Beach, Florida; Alan F. 

Abramowitz, Dennis W. Moore and Thomasina F. Moore, on behalf of Statewide 

Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee, Florida; Michelle Browning Coughlin, 

on behalf of MothersEsquire, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky; and David Neal 

Silverstein, on behalf of Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Children’s Legal 

Services, Bradenton, Florida; 

Responding with comments
- 7 -

APPENDIX

RULE 2.570. PARENTAL-LEAVE CONTINUANCE

(a) Generally. Absent one or more of the findings listed in subdivision 

(e) of this rule, a court shall grant a timely motion for continuance based on the 

parental leave of the movant’s lead attorney in the case, due to the birth or 

adoption of a child, if the motion is made within a reasonable time after the later 

of:

(1) the movant’s lead attorney learning of the basis for the 

continuance; or 

(2) the setting of the specific proceeding(s) or the scheduling of the 

matter(s) for which the continuance is sought.

(b) Contents of Motion. A motion filed under this rule shall be in 

writing and signed by the requesting party. The motion must state all of the 

following:

(1) The attorney who is the subject of the motion is the movant’s lead 

attorney. 

(2) The facts necessary to establish that the motion is timely. 

(3) The scope and length of the continuance requested.

(4) Whether another party objects to the motion. 

(5) Any other information that the movant considers relevant to the 

court’s consideration of the motion.

(c) Presumptive Length. Three months is the presumptive maximum 

length of a parental-leave continuance absent a showing of good cause that a 

longer time is appropriate. 

(d) Burden of Proof. If the motion is challenged by another party that 

makes a prima facie demonstration of substantial prejudice, the burden shall shift 

to the movant to demonstrate that the prejudice to the requesting party caused by 
- 8 -

the denial of the motion exceeds the prejudice that would be caused to the 

objecting party if the requested continuance were granted. 

(e) Court’s Discretion; Order. It is within the court’s sound discretion 

to deny the motion or to grant a continuance different in scope or duration than 

requested, if the court finds that:

(1) another party would be substantially prejudiced by the requested 

continuance; or

(2) the requested continuance would unreasonably delay an 

emergency or time-sensitive proceeding or matter.

The court shall enter a written order setting forth its ruling on the motion and the 

specific grounds for the ruling. 

(f) Criminal, Juvenile, and Involuntary Civil Commitment of 

Sexually Violent Predators Cases. In a case governed by the Florida Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or by the Florida 

Rules of Civil Procedure for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent 

Predators, a motion for continuance based on the parental leave of the lead attorney 

is governed by rule 2.545(e) and by any applicable Florida Rule of Criminal 

Procedure, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 

for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators, rather than by this 

rule, except that in a case governed by Part III of the Florida Rules of Juvenile 

Procedure, a motion for continuance based on the parental leave of the lead 

attorney is governed by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.240(d).