AMEND. TO FLA. FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROC.

• Decision Date: 21 September 2000
• Citation: 810 So.2d 1
• Parties: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE AND FAMILY LAW FORMS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

810 So.2d 1

AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE AND FAMILY LAW FORMS.

No. SC99-2.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 21, 2000.

Rehearing Denied January 4, 2001.

Judge Raymond T. McNeal, Chair, Family Court Steering Committee, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Ocala, Florida; Terrence P. O'Connor, Chair, Family Law Rules Committee, of Morgan, Carratt & O'Connor, Fort Lauderdale; and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner.

Chief Judge Robert K. Rouse, Jr., Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida; Judges Patrick G. Kennedy and S. James Foxman, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida; Judge Irene H. Sullivan, Sixth Judicial Circuit, St. Petersburg, Florida; Judge Seymour Benson, Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Sanford, Florida; Administrative Judge Robert L. Doyel, Family Division, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, Florida, and Administrative Judge Amy Karan, Domestic Violence Division, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida; Judge Keith Brace, First Judicial Circuit, Crestview, Florida; Chief Judge Paul B. Kanarek, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Vero Beach, Florida; Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Sarasota, Florida; Joel M. Cohen, Pensacola, Florida; Margaret Pearce of the Center Against Spouse Abuse, St. Petersburg, Florida, and Denise Springer of Gulf Coast Legal Services, St. Petersburg, Florida; and Sheriff Kevin Beary and Sergeant Kevin Behan, Domestic Violence Supervisor, Orange County Sheriff's Office, Orlando, Florida, Responding.

PARIENTE, J.

The Family Law Rules Committee ("the rules committee") and the Family Court Steering Committee ("the steering committee") have submitted to this Court proposed amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and the Florida Family Law Forms.¹ We published the committees' proposed amendments in the January 1 and January 15, 2000 editions of The Florida Bar News, and nearly all of the resulting comments related to the proposed domestic and repeat violence injunction forms. We herein accordingly focus most of our attention on those forms, and additionally address who shall have continuing responsibility for the family law forms.

I. BACKGROUND

Simplifying the process has been, and continues to be, a primary goal of this Court in the family law context. Beginning with the establishment of the circuit court family divisions in 1991, this Court set out to "provide a better means for resolution of family issues in this state." In re Report of the Comm'n on Family Courts, 588 So.2d 586, 592 (Fla.1991). Upon adopting family law rules and forms in 1995, this Court "extensively redrafted the [proposed] rules to eliminate as much complexity as possible ... [and] in an effort to assist the many pro se litigants in family law cases, ... redrafted the [proposed] rules to include Florida Supreme Court Approved Simplified Forms and instructional commentary and appendices." In re Family Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So.2d 1047, 1048 (Fla.1995).

In again amending the family law rules and forms later in 1995, this Court directed "particular emphasis on revisions to further simplify the family law process for the many pro se litigants in family law cases." In re Family Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So.2d 1049, 1053 (Fla.1995). In later amending the family law rules and forms in 1998, this Court reiterated that "[t]he development of common sense rules and forms in family law cases, understandable by both lawyers and pro se litigants alike, is essential," that "the rules governing family law cases should be crafted to establish an easy-to-understand process," and that "[o]ur goal must be to simplify the process. Otherwise, we deny many citizens meaningful and affordable access to the courts, particularly when so many of them are self-represented." Amendments to the Fla. Family Law Rules, 713 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1998).

This is especially true in the domestic violence context, wherein a great many of the litigants are unrepresented. As found by the Legislature, "the incidence of domestic violence in Florida is disturbingly high, and despite efforts of many to curb this violence, ... one person dies at the hands of a spouse, ex-spouse, or cohabitant approximately every 3 days." § 741.32(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) ("Certification of Batterers' Intervention Programs"); see also Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044, 1053 (Fla. 1999)

("It is now widely recognized that domestic violence `attacks are often repeated over time, and escape from the home is rarely possible without the threat of great personal violence or death.'").

With so much at stake, simplicity in seeking, obtaining, and understanding the relief granted in domestic violence injunction cases is absolutely essential, especially in cases involving pro se litigants. We have in the past recognized that "domestic and repeat violence injunctions are an important and significant responsibility of family courts," In re Family Law, 663 So.2d at 1049, and that it is extremely important to have "domestic violence issues addressed in an expeditious, efficient, and deliberative manner." In re Report of the Comm'n on Family Courts, 646 So.2d 178, 182 (Fla.1994). We now reiterate that "we do not want these important issues to become bogged down in an administrative morass." Id.

Uniformity in the form injunction orders themselves is likewise essential in this context. In adopting and requiring the use of standardized injunction forms in domestic and repeat violence cases in 1998, this Court recognized that, at that time, "most counties use[d] different injunction forms, which often result[ed] in enforcement problems across county lines for law enforcement officers" and that "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." Amendments to the Fla. Family Law Rules, 713 So.2d at 3; see also In re Amendments to the Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure (Self Help), 725 So.2d 365, 367 (Fla.1998)

(explaining that adoption of the mandatory domestic violence injunction forms was to provide for state-wide consistency in the use of the forms, and that "[t]his consistency was necessary given the distinct problems that are inherent in domestic violence cases").

II. THE PROPOSED DOMESTIC AND REPEAT VIOLENCE INJUNCTION FORMS

The steering committee now explains that, after the adoption of the mandatory domestic and repeat violence injunction forms, "attorneys, judges, legal services organizations and other affected individuals and groups raised a number of concerns about the forms," and that "[t]he Domestic Violence Subcommittee of the Steering Committee carefully reviewed those concerns in developing the recommendations in [the present] petition." As a result, according to the steering committee, "[t]he most significant proposed change to the form injunctions is the creation of separate forms for domestic violence cases involving children and domestic violence cases not involving children."

We approve the steering committee's proposal to create separate domestic violence injunction forms for cases involving children and cases not involving children. We below more specifically discuss the content of those domestic violence injunction forms, as well as the repeat violence injunction forms, proposed by the steering committee.² We also address related rule 12.610(c)(2)(A) proposed by the rules committee, which specifically pertains to the domestic and repeat violence injunction forms. We do not attempt to address every proposal and every comment received; rather, we focus our attention on the especially significant and pertinent proposals and comments, and particularly discuss all comments that have resulted in a modification to the proposed domestic and repeat violence injunction forms or related rule 12.610(c)(2)(A).

In so doing, we again emphasize the importance of simplicity and uniformity in these mandatory injunction forms. At the same time, however, we recognize that a "one size fits all" approach has the potential of rendering the injunction forms cumbersome for trial judges to use and litigants to understand. Accordingly, we have actively solicited and remain especially sensitive to comments from judges and others who use the forms on a daily basis.

A. Notice of Hearing

1. "For Example" Language: The proposed Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence forms in the "Notice of Hearing" section provide in pertinent part that at the scheduled hearing "the Court will consider whether the Court should issue an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, which would remain in effect until modified or dissolved by the Court, and whether other things should be ordered, including who should pay the filing fees and costs." Attorneys Margaret Pearce of the Center Against Spouse Abuse and Denise Springer of Gulf Coast Legal Services suggest the following change at the end of this provision: "and whether other things should be ordered, including, for example, such matters as who should pay the filing fees and costs, visitation and support." (Underscoring supplied to emphasize suggested changes.) They urge that "[t]his addition not only advises each party that these issues may be addressed at the hearing, but also clarifies the confusion by many petitioners and respondents who mistakenly believe that a permanent injunction will likewise automatically prohibit visitation." They suggest that "[t]his can be particularly problematic when the petitioner appears for the return hearing to request a dismissal based on this belief." We agree and, with minor modification, add the suggested "for example" language to the "with child(ren)" form at issue, but of course omit the reference to visitation in the "without child(ren)" form at issue. We also sua sponte make clear in both of these forms...