Opinion ID: 1843757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Injunction Forms

Text: We have been asked to require all Florida judges to use standardized forms for issuing injunctions in domestic and repeat violence cases. Currently, most counties use different injunction forms, which often results in enforcement problems across county lines for law enforcement officers. According to the steering committee and the Governor's Task Force on Domestic Violence, standardized forms would assist law enforcement officers in the enforcement of injunctions because, at a glance, they would be able to easily determine the terms of an injunction no matter which court generated the injunction. Most comments received by this Court favored this proposal in concept. Significant concern, however, was raised regarding the forms as proposed. Specifically, concerns were raised as to vague language regarding prohibited contact, language permitting contact generally and visitation with children in the temporary domestic violence injunction forms, the full faith and credit language, language regarding firearms, the length of the forms, and prohibitions against leaving the state with a minor child. We agree with the concept of standardized forms and have modified rule 12.610 to require all judges to use the standardized injunction forms contained in Appendix B of this opinion. To accommodate the concerns addressed in the preceding paragraph, we have reviewed each of the suggestions in detail and have modified the injunction forms accordingly. For instance, where the forms prohibited a respondent from going near a petitioner's residence or place of employment, we have modified the forms to prohibit a respondent from going within 500 feet of petitioner's residence or place of employment unless otherwise provided by the trial judge issuing the injunction. Numerous other similar changes were made in response to specific comments received. Additionally, some comments noted the significant length of some forms due to the inclusion of standardized provisions regarding support and visitation issues that were not applicable to all cases. To accommodate those concerns, we have structured the injunction forms so that pages addressing support and visitation issues are separate and can be included or deleted as necessary. Judges are provided with a provision at the end of each applicable injunction form to indicate whether pages regarding support and visitation issues are included and to thus alert law enforcement officers as to the inclusion or exclusion of those pages. We have also eliminated the options for allowing contact between the petitioner and respondent and visitation with minor children in the temporary injunction form. The additional provisions space on the form will still allow judges to include provisions for contact or visitation; however, comments received expressed concern that a form which included a standard provision allowing for contact and/or visitation would encourage contact during the brief but volatile period of time between the issuance of the temporary and permanent injunctions. Some modifications in this regard have also been made to the permanent injunction form. The full faith and credit language that was included on the domestic violence injunctions has been modified to eliminate the language that the form shall be afforded full faith and credit. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (1994), does mandate that protection orders be afforded full faith and credit if certain conditions are met. However, comments received pointed out that such a determination must be made on a case by case basis by the judge issuing the order and a judge in the state in which enforcement is sought. The language has been modified to indicate that the [i]t is intended  that the injunction be afforded full faith and credit. We were also asked by the Governor's Task Force on Domestic Violence to eliminate the provision in the forms precluding a victim from leaving the state with the parties' minor child. The concern was that a victim could not leave the state if necessary for safety purposes. Having considered this proposal, we conclude that a victim should be permitted to leave the state with the parties' minor child only if permitted through court order. While we recognize the concern for the victim's safety, this concern can be easily remedied by simply asking for permission to leave the state when filing the petition. We were also requested to make mandatory the current optional prohibition against possession of firearms or ammunition as well as to require that all firearms be surrendered to law enforcement. Currently, it is a violation of federal law to possess certain firearms while under an injunction for protection. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(1994). However, there is apparently no similar provision in Florida law, and the federal prohibition covers only firearms used in commerce. Under these circumstances, we are without authority to require Florida judges to automatically preclude possession of firearms. That would require a substantive legislative act. While we believe that judges would be well advised to make such a preclusion, we have left the provision optional. We have, however, included additional space on the form for judges to include instructions regarding the surrender of firearms and any related procedure for doing so should they conclude that surrender is appropriate. Both the committees and this Court also recognize that individual counties and circuits may have local provisions that need to be incorporated into the forms. The rule thus provides a procedure to be used to incorporate local provisions into the forms. We have also been asked to make changes to rule 12.610 and related injunctions forms regarding the following two issues: (1) whether service of the permanent injunction may be mailed when the temporary injunction has been personally served on a respondent; and (2) whether the permanent injunction is to be issued for an indefinite or fixed period of time. Currently, rule 12.610 provides that both temporary and permanent injunctions in domestic violence cases must be served by personal service. The only exception to this provision is when a party is present at the hearing on a permanent injunction and that party fails or refuses to acknowledge receipt of a certified copy of the injunction from the clerk. Under those circumstances, the clerk may mail a certified copy of the injunction to that party's last known address and service is then complete upon mailing. We have been asked to amend rule 12.610 to allow service of the permanent injunction by mail when the respondent has been personally served with the temporary injunction. According to the rules committee, personal service of the temporary injunction, which (as proposed) includes directives that the permanent injunction will be served by mail, should be sufficient. The justification for the amendment is the difficulty in finding a respondent after the respondent is removed from the parties' joint residence. The domestic violence statute, section 741.30, Florida Statutes (1997), appears to have conflicting provisions regarding this issue. However, at least one provision in this statute specifically requires personal service of the permanent injunction. See § 741.30(7)(c)1. (Within 24 hours after the court issues an injunction for protection against domestic violence ... the clerk of the court must forward a certified copy of the injunction for service to the sheriff with jurisdiction over the residence of the petitioner. The injunction must be served in accordance with the subsection.) (emphasis added). We received many comments from both judges and prosecutors opposing any change that would allow service by mail due to concerns about enforcement of the injunction and prosecution of injunction violations. We agree with those concerns. We conclude that the rule should not be amended to allow service by mail. Section 741.30 has also been revised to provide that the terms of an injunction are to remain in effect until modified or dissolved. See § 741.30(6)(b). Recommended changes to the rules and forms conform to that requirement. Some comments opposed this change because of problems that arise when awards of support and custody are made in a domestic violence injunction but no dissolution action is ever filed. In effect, by eliminating time limitations on permanent injunctions, the legislature has directed the courts to make permanent decisions regarding support and custody in domestic violence proceedings. While we recognize that an injunction should perhaps be issued for an indefinite period of time for purposes of protecting victims from violence, we agree with the concerns raised about this change. Further, we do not believe that the legislature can restrict a trial court's discretion to place time limitations on injunctions it issues. We have thus made modifications to allow judges to choose whether the injunction is to be indefinite or is to expire on a date certain.