B.C., R.C., AND K.C., A MINOR CHILD, PETITIONERS,
v.
A.P., A MINOR CHILD, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, C.P. AND W.P.; C.P., INDIVIDUALLY; AND W.P., INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
K.C. and his parents sought to block discovery of K.C.'s juvenile files, HRS records, and police records in a civil sexual abuse case. The court upheld the trial court's order permitting discovery, finding that Florida statute authorizes disclosure upon court order.
The trial court properly ordered discovery of the juvenile proceedings transcript, police records, and HRS records. Section 39.12(5), Florida Statutes permits such disclosure upon court order, and the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in authorizing the discovery.
[1] Juvenile files, HRS files, and police records are subject to discovery upon order of the court.
[2] A court may order the disclosure of confidential juvenile records after conducting an in camera inspection to determine a proper interest in the records.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[information obtained pursuant to this chapter in the discharge of official duty by any judge, any employee of the court, any authorized agent of the department, ... or any law enforcement agent shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the authorized personnel of the court, the department and its designees, the Department of Corrections, the Parole Commission, law enforcement agents, school superintendents and their designees, and others entitled under this chapter to receive this information, except upon order of the court.”
Establishes the statutory basis permitting discovery of confidential records upon court order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.P., a minor, and his parents filed a civil action against K.C., alleging sexual abuse. A.P. and his parents requested production of K.C.'s police re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Camera Inspection cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
K.C., a minor child, and his parents, R.C. and B.C., present a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court’s order granting discovery of juvenile files, HRS files, police records, and all psychological and psychiatric records pertaining to K.C. We have jurisdiction. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987); Pilkington PLC v. Metro Corp., 526 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Finding that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law, we deny petitioners’ request for a writ of common law certiorari.
Petitioners are defendants in an action filed by A.P., a minor child, and his parents, W.P. and C.P., alleging, among other matters, that K.C., a minor child, sexually abused A.P. A.P. and his parents requested production of police records, transcripts of juvenile proceedings, the HRS investigation file, and the psychiatric and psychological records pertaining to K.C. The trial court ordered production of the requested documents.1
The transcript of juvenile proceedings against K.C., the police records, and the HRS records are subject to discovery. Section 39.12(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), states:
[information obtained pursuant to this chapter in the discharge of official duty by any judge, any employee of the court, any authorized agent of the department, ... or any law enforcement agent shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the authorized personnel of the court, the department and its designees, the Department of Corrections, the Parole Commission, law enforcement agents, school superintendents and their designees, and others entitled under this chapter to receive this information, except upon order of the court.
(Emphasis supplied).
The clear language of the statute permits discovery upon order of the court. The court conducted an in camera inspection to determine whether A.P. and his parents had a proper interest in the records, see § 39.12(4), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988), and then properly issued the order under review, releasing the documents under the authority provided by Section 39.12(5), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). The court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
We express no opinion as to whether these documents, although discoverable, are relevant, material, or otherwise admissible at trial. See § 39.12(7), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988).
Certiorari denied.
. K.C. concedes that the discovery of the psychiatric and psychological records is not at issue.
. Section 39.01(13), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), states that ‘“[c]ourt,' unless otherwise expressly stated, means the circuit court." Section 39.01(15) defines “department" as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of J.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 101 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…may sometimes be reviewed by certiorari when it would be impossible to later demonstrate prejudice). Thus, we conclude that the City would be entitled to relief under the narrower standard governing certiorari review. Cf. B.C. v. A.P. ex rel. C.P., 538 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (denying certiorari relief from nonfinal order granting access to juvenile records under substantially similar predecessor statute when the circuit court “conducted an in camera inspection to determine whether [the plaintiffs…
-
R.K. v. Kanaski, 426 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2006)…and their guardian ad litem have concurred with the use that is being made of these records. Moreover, the statutes provide that the court has the discretion to permit disclosure based upon an appropriate showing. See, e.g. B.C. v. A.P., 538 So.2d 525 (Fla.3d Dist.Ct.App.1989); Powell v. Foxman, 528 So.2d 91 (Fla. 5th Dist.Ct.App.1988). Pursuant to section 39.202(2)(f), the undersigned finds that access to these records “may be necessary for the determination of an issue before the court.”…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Pilkington PLC v. Metro Corp., 526 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)