Natural Parents of JB v. FLORIDA DCFS.

• Decision Date: 22 February 2001
• Docket Number: No. SC96171.,SC96171.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: The NATURAL PARENTS OF J.B., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, etc., Respondent.

780 So.2d 6

The NATURAL PARENTS OF J.B., Petitioners, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, etc., Respondent.

No. SC96171.

Supreme Court of Florida.

February 22, 2001.

Bruce Rogow and Beverly A. Pohl of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioners.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Respondent.

QUINCE, J.

We have for review a decision on the following question certified by the Fourth District Court of Appeal to be of great public importance:

IS SECTION 39.467(4), NOW SECTION 39.809(4), FLORIDA STATUTES (SUPP.1998), REQUIRING A MANDATORY CLOSURE OF ALL HEARINGS IN TPR PROCEEDINGS VALID UNDER THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RESPECTING ACCESS OF THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS?

Department of Children & Family Services v. Natural Parents of J.B., 736 So.2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we conclude that section 39.467(4), Florida Statutes (1997), now section 39.809(4), Florida Statutes (2000), requiring mandatory closure of all hearings in termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings is valid under the United States and Florida constitutional provisions respecting access of the public and media to judicial proceedings. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.

FACTS

The Department of Children and Family Services initially brought an action seeking a declaration that J.B., a minor child, was dependent and in need of care. The State alleged that the mother of the child suffers from Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome and intentionally caused her minor child to become so ill that she required numerous hospitalizations. Under section 39.507, Florida Statutes (1999), the adjudicatory hearing on a State's petition for dependency is required to be open to the public unless the judge orders the hearing closed upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing.¹ The parents moved to close the dependency proceedings and to enjoin all concerned from releasing information about the proceeding to anyone, arguing that it was against the child's best interests to be exposed to the press and media. The parents also filed a motion to impose a "gag" order to prohibit the release of any information. The trial court eventually denied the motions but without prejudice to the parents to move to close any further proceedings.

At some point, the State moved to permanently terminate parental rights. Because the character of the proceedings changed to a TPR proceeding, the requirements of section 39.467, Florida Statutes (1997),² became controlling. This statute provides in part: "All hearings involving termination of parental rights are confidential and closed to the public."³ The parents then changed their position and alleged that the mandatory closure required by the TPR statute is unconstitutional and violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They allege here that the statute violates both the United States and Florida Constitutions.⁴

The trial court declared section 39.467(4) facially overbroad and unconstitutional. The trial court reasoned that TPR proceedings should be treated like criminal prosecutions since the parents in a TPR proceeding face grave consequences. The trial court noted that the dependency proceedings were open as required by the dependency statute, and there had already been extensive media coverage.

The State filed a petition for certiorari, and the Fourth District quashed the trial court's order. The Fourth District began its analysis with the following "well-worn principles of constitutional adjudication":

Statutes are presumed to be valid and not unconstitutional. Courts are required to concede every presumption in favor of the validity of a statute. One who challenges the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Only a clear and demonstrated usurpation of power will authorize judicial interference with legislative action. It is therefore the duty of an appellate court to uphold the validity of a statute in all cases where that result can be lawfully reached.

Department of Children & Family Services v. Natural Parents of J.B., 736 So.2d at 113-14 (citations omitted). With those initial guidelines, the Fourth District held that the parents failed to meet their heavy burden of demonstrating the invalidity of this statutory provision. The Fourth District focused primarily on the Sixth Amendment and rejected the trial court and parents' criminal model for TPR proceedings. In so doing, the Fourth District refused to extend Sixth Amendment rights of the criminally accused, including the right to a public trial, to parents in TPR proceedings. The Fourth District added further that the Legislature has set the public policy of the state by including the mandatory closure language in the statute, that mandatory closure of TPR proceedings is consistent with other proceedings involving juveniles, and that mandatory closure falls within the exceptions to the general policy of openness enunciated in Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113 (Fla.1988). We agree with the decision and rationale of the Fourth District.

Closed Court Presumption in Juvenile Proceedings

Petitioners advocate that a presumption of openness should be extended to TPR proceedings which, they argue, can only be overcome if the court determines on a case-by-case basis that the best interest of the child outweighs the public's right of access to the proceedings and that any such order of closure should be narrowly tailored to that end. "[I]n determining whether a particular proceeding is presumptively open, the Court examines whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and public and whether public access plays a significant role in the functioning of the process." In re N.H.B. 769 P.2d 844, 847 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986)). Petitioners present the lengthy history and rationale of the open court presumption in criminal cases. We agree with petitioners that criminal matters are traditionally open proceedings. However, we do not agree that the presumption of openness in criminal proceedings is or should be extended to juvenile proceedings.

The foundation of the juvenile system is to "`preserv[e] and promot[e] the welfare of the child,' which makes a juvenile proceeding fundamentally different from an adult criminal trial." Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 263, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984) (citation omitted). Although juvenile proceedings are civil proceedings, Ostrum v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 663 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and although the presumption of openness has generally been extended to civil proceedings, juvenile proceedings have historically been closed to the public in furtherance of the overriding interest in, among other things, protecting the child from stigma, publicity, and embarrassment and promoting rehabilitation.

It is a hallmark of our juvenile justice system in the United States that virtually from its inception at the end of the last century its proceedings have been conducted outside of the public's full gaze and the youths brought before our juvenile courts have been shielded from publicity. See H. Lou, Juvenile Courts in the United States 131-133 (1927); Geis, Publicity and Juvenile Court Proceedings, 30 Rocky Mt.L.Rev. 101, 102, 116 (1958).

Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97, 107, 99 S.Ct. 2667, 61 L.Ed.2d 399 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., concurring). All fifty states have some form of shield law to limit public access to proceedings involving juveniles. Id. at 99, 99 S.Ct. 2667. We have found no case that holds that the presumption of openness is a constitutional requirement in the context of juvenile proceedings. Indeed, the history of the juvenile justice system indicates the contrary, that it is in the best interest of the child to protect the child from publicity in certain proceedings and that this protection outweighs the public's right to access. We do not agree with petitioners that in TPR proceedings a presumption of openness is constitutionally required. A presumption that juvenile proceedings be closed to the public is consistent with the history and tradition of the juvenile justice system and furthers the sound and practical purposes of that system.

Mandatory Closure

Petitioners argue that closing court proceedings to the public is constitutional only if there is a compelling government interest to do so and only if closure is narrowly tailored to further that interest. While petitioners do not dispute the compelling government interest in confidential juvenile proceedings, they do argue that mandatory or per se closure of juvenile proceedings is not narrowly tailored.

Only in those proceedings found to be presumptively open, however, is it necessary for the court to make specific findings "demonstrating that `closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'" Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984)). Thus, where there is no presumption of openness, there is no need for specific findings demonstrating that closure is essential and narrowly tailored. Because there is no presumption of openness in TPR proceedings, a mandatory closure requirement does not unconstitutionally limit the public's right of access to the proceedings. Thus, mandatory closure of proceedings that have no presumption of openness is constitutionally valid.

Petitioners...