AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.050, 2.075, AND 2.160, AND FORM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.901
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.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt proposed amendments to the Rules of Judicial Administration that would have required judges to report suspected child abuse to the Department of Children and Families under the Kayla McKean Act. The Court found the proposed rules raised significant concerns about judicial impartiality and the proper role of the judiciary, and invited further study of alternative approaches.
The Court declined to adopt the proposed amendments at that time, finding that they raised competing concerns about judicial impartiality and the proper role of the judiciary in protecting children's interests. The Court invited further study and alternative approaches from interested parties.
[1] A court may decline to adopt proposed rules amendments that have generated significant opposition and address competing concerns regarding judicial impartiality and the p…
[2] Judicial rules amendments may be published for public comment and oral argument before a court decides whether to adopt them.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“How can the judicial branch comply with the intent of the Kayla McKean Act to have information provided to the Department of Children and Families without impinging upon separation of powers, the prohibition against ex parte contacts, the impartiality of the judiciary and other important policy issues?”
States the core question the Ad Hoc Committee was directed to address, highlighting the tension between child protection and judicial independence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Kayla McKean Act prompted the Court to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to address how the judicial branch could comply with the Act's intent to prov…
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 Best Interests Of The Children cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By administrative order dated October 25, 1999, this Court established the Ad Hoc Committee on Implementation of the Kayla McKean Act (“Ad Hoc Committee”) and directed it to address the following question:
How can the judicial branch comply with the intent of the Kayla McKean Act to have information provided to the Department of Children and Families without impinging upon separation of powers, the prohibition against ex parte contacts, the impartiality of the judiciary and other important policy issues? In response, the Ad Hoc Committee on December 30, 1999, submitted an interim report to this Court recommending several proposed amendments to the Rules of Judicial Administration that would subject judges to judicial sanctions if they failed to provide notice to the Department of Children and Families when, in the course of their official duties, the judges had reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. This Court published the proposed amendments in the January 15, 2000, edition of The Florida Bar News, received several comments thereon, and ultimately held oral argument in this case on May 8, 2000. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. The proposed rules have generated significant opposition from, among others, both the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee and the Family Law Rules Committee. In addition, the Legislature has now amended the very Act that gave rise to this Court’s appointment of the Ad Hoc Committee and the imposition of a strict deadline on the Ad Hoc Committee to make its recommendations.
While we appreciate the concerns expressed at oral argument by the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Committee, we are also mindful of the competing concerns voiced by those who spoke in opposition regarding the impartiality of the judiciary and its proper role in protecting the best interests of children. We therefore decline to adopt the proposed rules at this time. We welcome any suggestions from all interested parties, including the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, the Family Law Rules Committee, and the Ad Hoc Committee as to whether this issue should be studied further and any alternative approaches considered.
We commend the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, comprised of Judge Daniel Dawson (Co-Chair), Judge Robert L. Doy-el (Co-Chair), Judge Nikki Ann Clark, Judge Walter Colbath, Jr., Judge Janet Ferris, and Judge Amy Karan. We wish to express not only our gratitude for all of the committee members’ hard work, but also our hope that these dedicated individuals will continue to provide meaningful input on this very important matter. It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.