Court Opinion

ID: 9902556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:19:58.489613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.659439
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                   _____________________________

                         Case No. 5D23-279
                     LT Case No. 2017-DP-140
                   _____________________________

GUARDIAN AD LITEM, and K.F.,
and J.F., Adoptive Parents of
RA.W.,

    Petitioners,

    v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES; R.W., JR., and T.W.,
Biological/Former Parents; R.W., SR.,
and C.W., Paternal Grandparents/Adoptive Parents
of R.W., III,

    Respondents.
               _____________________________

Petition for Certiorari Review of the Order from the Circuit Court
for Clay County.
Angela M. Cox, Judge.

Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah
Todd Weitz, Senior Attorney, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem
Office, Tallahassee, for Petitioner, Guardian ad Litem.

Alan I. Mishael, Boca Raton, for Petitioners, K.F. and J.F.,
Adoptive Parents of Ra.W.

Henry G. Gyden, of Gyden Law Group, P.A., Tampa, and Karen
Gievers, Tallahassee, and Octavia O. Brown and Valentina
Villalobos, of Community Law for Families and Children, PLLC,
Tampa, for Respondents, R.W., Jr., and T.W., Biological/Former
Parents, R.W., Sr., and C.W., Paternal Grandparents/Adoptive
Parents of R.W., III.

Sarah J. Rumph, of Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for
Respondent, Department of Children and Families.

                         October 18, 2023

LAMBERT, J.

       Petitioners, Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) and K.F. and J.F.,
the adoptive parents of Ra.W. (“the adoptive parents”), seek
certiorari review and relief from an order entered by the circuit
court granting Respondents’, R.W., Jr., and T.W. (“the birth
parents”) and R.W., Sr., and C.W.’s (“the paternal grandparents”)
motion for access to the court records in three dependency cases. 1
For the following reasons, we grant, in part, and deny, in part, the
petition.

                                     I.

      We begin with a brief review of the history and parties
involved in these dependency cases. The birth parents had two
minor children, R.W. III and Ra.W. At the age of three months,
Ra.W. was discovered to have various fractures, the origin of which
was in dispute. As a result, dependency case number 2017-DP-140
was initiated by the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”)
as to both children. Ultimately, DCF petitioned to terminate the
birth parents’ parental rights to these two children.

     Following trial, the birth parents’ parental rights to R.W. III
and Ra.W. were terminated in March 2018. No appeal of the final
judgment terminating their parental rights was taken. R.W. III
was adopted by the paternal grandparents in April 2019; and
Ra.W. was adopted by the adoptive parents, K.F. and J.F., who

    1 This order was stayed pending resolution of the instant
proceeding.   Consistent with the instant opinion, the stay
previously imposed is vacated.

                                 2
were not related to Ra.W., in July 2019. The birth parents later
moved to vacate the final judgments of adoption and the final
judgment terminating their parental rights. The circuit court
dismissed their motions with prejudice. No appeal was taken from
the dismissal order.

      After being adopted by his paternal grandparents, R.W. III
became the subject of a second dependency case, 2019-DP-168,
which was closed with no change in the legal relationship between
the paternal grandparents and their adopted son, R.W. III. The
birth parents then had another child, T.W., who became the
subject of dependency case number 2021-DP-15, which was
subsequently dismissed.

      In May 2022, the birth parents and the paternal
grandparents filed the subject motion for access to the court
records in the above-described cases. The dependency court
granted their motion, which is the order being challenged by the
instant petition for writ of certiorari.

                                     II.

       To obtain certiorari relief, Petitioners must establish that
“(1) the order ‘depart[s] from the essential requirements of the
law,’ and (2) ‘result[s] in material injury for the remainder of the
case (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal.’” M.M.
v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 189 So. 3d 134, 138 (Fla. 2016)
(alterations in original) (quoting Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359,
364 (Fla. 2012)). The second and third prongs or elements of this
standard, often collectively referred to as “irreparable harm,” are
jurisdictional. Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d
1282, 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Citizens Prop. Ins. v. San
Perdido Ass’n, 104 So. 3d 344, 351 (Fla. 2012)). Accordingly, before
addressing the merits of the petition—that is, whether the order
departs from the essential requirements of the law—the first task
is to determine whether irreparable harm has been shown to
trigger our jurisdiction. See DecisionHR USA, Inc. v. Mills, 341
So. 3d 448, 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

                                 3
      Section 39.0132(3), Florida Statutes (2021), governs the
inspection of court records in dependency cases. It provides, in
pertinent part:

            All court records required by this chapter
            shall not be open to inspection by the
            public. All records shall be inspected only
            upon order of the court by persons deemed
            by the court to have a proper interest
            therein, except that, subject to the
            provisions of s. 63.162, a child and the
            parents of the child and their attorneys . .
            . shall always have the right to inspect and
            copy any official record pertaining to the
            child.

§ 39.0132(3), Fla. Stat. (2021). We have no difficulty in finding
that an order that improperly permits disclosure of confidential
court records in dependency cases satisfies the necessary showing
of irreparable harm as this constitutes the figurative “cat out of
the bag” type of error that cannot be later remedied on plenary
appeal. See Statewide Guardian ad Litem v. Alberto, 351 So. 3d
625, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (holding that the disclosure of
confidential records from a dependency case caused “irreparable
injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following
final judgment” (citing D.C. v. J.M., 133 So. 3d 1080, 1082 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2014))).

                                III.

     Having concluded that we have jurisdiction in this proceeding,
we turn to whether the dependency court’s order authorizing the
birth parents’ and paternal grandparents’ access to the court
records in the three dependency cases constituted a departure
from the essential requirements of the law. A departure of this
type is established if the order amounts to “a violation of a clearly
established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
Tedder v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 842 So. 2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA
2003) (quoting Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla. 1983)).
Critically, certiorari is not to be used to redress mere legal error;
rather, it applies to correct a miscarriage of justice when no other

                                 4
remedy is available. Allstate Ins. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885,
889 (Fla. 2003).

     Pertinent here, section 39.0132(3), Florida Statutes, makes
clear that dependency court records are accessible only by court
order and only to parents of the child and their attorneys 2 or to
persons deemed by the court to have a “proper interest” in the
records. Accordingly, for the birth parents or the paternal
grandparents to be entitled to inspect the court records in any or
all of the three subject dependency court cases, they must either
meet the definition of being the parent of the child or children in
the case or be deemed by the dependency court to have a “proper
interest” in the court records. We now address each of the
dependency cases.

                                      IV.

     The instant order provided the birth parents with access to
the court records in case number 2021-DP-15 regarding the minor
child, T.W. As their parental rights to T.W. have not been
terminated, the court order correctly recognized both their and
their attorneys’ right to access and inspect these court records. 3

     The order also permitted the paternal grandparents the right
to access and inspect the court records in case number 2019-DP-
168 regarding R.W. III. We find no error in this ruling. The
paternal grandparents legally adopted R.W. III. Under section
39.01(56), Florida Statutes (2021), if a child is legally adopted, the
term “parent” means the adoptive mother or father of the child.

    2 Section 39.0132(3) names other entities that “always have

the right to inspect” such records (e.g., law enforcement agencies),
but those provisions are not pertinent to the instant proceedings
because neither the birth parents nor the paternal grandparents
could be reasonably characterized as any of those entities.
    3 The order did not authorize the paternal grandparents the

right to inspect the court records in case number 2021-DP-15.

                                  5
Thus, the parental grandparents are the legal parents of R.W. III,
and they and their attorneys have the right to inspect and copy the
court records in case number 2019-DP-168. 4

     Circuit court case number 2017-DP-140 was the dependency
proceeding for both R.W. III and his sister, Ra.W. Thus, for the
reasons just explained, the paternal grandparents and their
attorneys are entitled to inspect and copy the court records in this
case pertaining to R.W. III.

       As to the birth parents, as previously indicated, their
parental rights to both children were legally terminated in 2018.
Under section 39.01(56), the term “parent” does not include an
individual whose parental rights to the child have been legally
terminated. Therefore, the instant court order granting the birth
parents access to the confidential court records in cases 2017-DP-
140 and 2019-DP-168 regarding R.W. III and Ra.W is sustainable
only if the birth parents showed a “proper interest” in these court
records. Petitioners contend that the birth parents, having had
their parental rights terminated, are no different than any
member of the public at large seeking these confidential records
and thus lack the proper interest needed to obtain access to these
confidential court records.

       The birth parents argued below and here that they
demonstrated the “proper interest” in these court records based on
their pending separate civil suits against GAL, DCF, the adoptive
parents of Ra.W., and the birth parents’ former counsel in which
they seek damages for alleged fraudulent conduct of these parties
that culminated in their losing their parental rights to the
children. The birth parents asserted that this interest differs
significantly from that of the public at large and thus justified the
dependency court granting them access to the records.

    4 Section 39.0132(3) contains a proviso that the parents’ right

to access the dependency court records is subject to section 63.162
(pertaining to the confidentiality of adoption records), but
application of that condition is not material to the resolution of the
instant proceedings.

                                  6
      In finding that the birth parents established the requisite
“proper interest” under section 39.0132(3) to access and inspect the
court records in case numbers 2017-DP-140 and 2019-DR-168, the
dependency court relied upon the Second District Court of Appeal’s
opinion In re J.B., 101 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In that case,
the City of Plant City was defending against a wrongful death suit
in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages on behalf of a
minor child. Id. at 408. The child was under the supervision of
DCF after his mother had been murdered and his father was
thereafter incarcerated for the murder. Id. at 408–410.

      The City moved to inspect the dependency court records
concerning the child, but its motion was denied. Id. at 409. The
Second District Court reversed, finding that under section
39.0132(3), the City had established the requisite proper interest
to inspect these court records that differed from that of the public
at large. Id. at 410–11. The court concluded that the City had a
legitimate and appropriate need to access the records in order to
allow it to discover facts to assess the claim for damages being
brought against it, for purposes of either defending itself or
engaging in settlement negotiations. Id. at 410.

      Here, the birth parents’ separate civil suits seek damages for
alleged fraudulent or negligent conduct of the aforementioned
persons and entities; and they similarly seek to discover facts from
the dependency court records to assist in their efforts to recover
damages on their claims. 5 The dependency court’s reliance upon
J.B. in granting the birth parents’ access to the court records in
case number 2017-DP-140 and 2009-DP-168 was consistent with

    5 The birth parents also argued that they had shown proper

interest to access these confidential court records to assist them in
their effort to set aside the final judgment terminating their
parental rights and the final judgments of adoption that have been
final for more than three years. While, as argued by Petitioners,
such efforts to do so now would appear to be completely barred by
the statute of repose codified at section 63.182(1), Florida Statutes
(2017), and thus not meet the threshold of a “proper interest,” our
resolution of this petition obviates the need to address this
argument.

                                 7
the ruling in that case, and thus did not constitute a violation of a
clearly established principle of law necessary to justify certiorari
relief here. We therefore deny the petition as to Petitioners’ efforts
to preclude the birth parents’ access to the court records in these
two cases.

                                 V.

     Lastly, we conclude that while the paternal grandparents are
entitled to access those parts of the court records in case number
2017-DP-140 that pertain to R.W. III, they are not entitled to that
part of the court records that are solely related to Ra.W., as they
are not Ra.W’s legal parents nor do they have a proper interest in
these records. We therefore quash the order in part; and we
remand for the lower court to conduct an in camera review of the
court records in case number 2017-DP-140 and, to the extent that
there are court records that pertain exclusively to Ra.W., to enter
an order or take other appropriate action that precludes the
paternal grandparents from inspecting and copying these specific
records.

   PETITION DENIED, in part; ORDER QUASHED, in part;
REMANDED, with directions.

MAKAR and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  8