Adoption of H.Y.T., In re
| Decision Date | 25 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 65515,65515 |
| Parties | In re The Matter of the ADOPTION OF: H.Y.T., a minor. Daniel S. WALLACE, etc., Appellant, v. C. McFerrin SMITH, III, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Daniel S. Wallace, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
David A. Monaco of Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, for News-Journal Corp. F. Daun Fowler, Daytona Beach, for Alva and Wanda Ramey.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for State of Florida, for intervenor.
We accepted jurisdiction of this case because of a question certified as being of great public importance, pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(5), Florida Constitution, and passed directly to this Court by the Fifth District Court of Appeal pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.125.
The question arises out of a protracted custody dispute between the maternal grandparents (Rameys) and paternal grandparents (Thomases) over their orphaned granddaughter, which culminated in an order of adoption in favor of the Thomases being set aside by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in 1980. Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So.2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 1116 (Fla.1980). In that decision, the DCA noted that the child was unrepresented in all the earlier procedures and ordered the appointment of an attorney-ad-litem to represent the best interests of the child. The press had given the bitter dispute great play and had covered all the earlier proceedings.
The hearing on a subsequent adoption proceeding was scheduled to begin May 29, 1984. The child's attorney-ad-litem moved the court to close all the proceedings pursuant to section 63.162(1), Florida Statutes (1983). The media protested and urged the court to deny the motion on grounds that the policy underlying the statute was inapplicable to the facts of this case and that any right of privacy the child might claim had been waived.
The court ruled section 63.162(1) unconstitutional, reasoning that if the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial did not outweigh the media's first amendment right of access to court proceedings, no rights implicated in the present case could counterbalance the first amendment. As the statute permitted no discretion in its application, the statute was thus held to be unconstitutionally overbroad.
A petition for writ of certiorari was filed, the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified the question to be of great public importance and passed it directly to the Supreme Court without addressing the merits.
We reverse the order of the circuit court and find section 63.162(1) constitutional.
Section 63.162 provides, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any other law concerning public hearings and records: (1) All hearings held in proceedings under this act shall be held in closed court without admittance of any person other than essential officers of the court, the parties, witnesses, counsel, persons who have not consented to the adoption and are required to consent, and representatives of the agencies who are present to perform their official duties.
(1) All hearings held in proceedings under this act shall be held in closed court without admittance of any person other than essential officers of the court, the parties, witnesses, counsel, persons who have not consented to the adoption and are required to consent, and representatives of the agencies who are present to perform their official duties.
The Florida legislature has recognized an overriding public policy of protecting from harmful publicity parties to and the subject of adoption proceedings. This policy recognizes that adoption proceedings are qualitatively different from other judicial proceedings. In typical litigation, the courts have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Cox
... ... the two men lived at the same address and sent them a letter in late April advising them that HRS would not accept an application for the adoption of a child from either man in light of section 63.042(3). 1 That statute, enacted in 1977, provides: "No person eligible to adopt under this ... ...
-
Facebook, Inc. v. K.G.S.
... ... Williams of Friedman Dazzio Zulanas & Bowling, PC, Birmingham, for appellee. BRYAN, Justice. 1 294 So.3d 126 This case stems from the adoption of "Baby Doe" by his adoptive mother, K.G.S., which was contested by Baby Doe's birth mother, K.R. ("the birth mother"). Details of that contested ... ...
-
Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Children & Family
... ... In this appeal, we decide the states' rights issue of whether Florida Statute § 63.042(3), which prevents adoption by practicing homosexuals, is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. The district court granted summary ... ...
-
T.R., In re
...provisions similar to ours in their constitutions have held presumptive closure statutes to be constitutional. In the Matter of Adoption of H.Y.T. (Fla.1984), 458 So.2d 1127 (adoption proceedings); Courier-Journal v. F.T.P. (Oct. 27, 1989), Ky.App. Nos. 88-CA-1489-MR and 88-CA-1490-MR, unre......