MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
S.-P,D. AND I.-P,E., X AND Y, ETC., 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.
The court held that the trial court's order denying access to closed court proceedings must be quashed because the closure was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
The Miami Herald Media Company sought access to closed dependency proceedings. The trial court initially closed the proceedings and, after an evidenti…
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 Writ Of Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Petitioner, Miami Herald Media Company, seeks an emergency writ of certiorari quashing an order of the trial court that denies the Herald access to closed court proceedings. We grant the petition and quash the order under review.
On April 20, 2006, the trial court closed all proceedings in this dependency proceeding at the request of the temporary legal custodians and the Guardian Ad Li-tem “without prejudice to the Court’s consideration of any Motion for Access which may hereafter be filed.” In March, 2007, the Herald determined to challenge the order, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on the need for continued closure. After considering all of the evidence, the court concluded that the proceeding should remain closed.
Under Florida law, the trial court “may close any [dependency] hearing to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare of the child is best served by so doing.” § 39.507(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). However, such a determination must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Hembree v. Thomas, 906 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(“A trial court’s decision relating to [the best interest of the child] and to the modification of custody must be based on factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence.”). See also R.F. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families (In the Interest of M.F.), 770 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla.2000)(“A court’s final ruling of dependency is a mixed question of law and fact and will be sustained on review if the court applied the correct law and its ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.”). The evidence presented to the trial court fails to satisfy this requirement.
We quash the order of the trial court without prejudice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of M.F. and M.F. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 770 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2000)
- Hembree v. Thomas, 906 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Winbush v. State, 906 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)