STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLOTTE GAMBLE, AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF CYNTHIA GAMBLE, A MINOR, APPELLEE
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.
A guardian sought a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of records regarding injuries to a child in state custody. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's issuance of the writ, holding that mandamus is not the appropriate remedy because the guardian failed to establish a clear legal duty for disclosure under the cited statutes.
The court held that mandamus is not the appropriate remedy because the guardian failed to establish a clear legal duty on the part of the state to disclose the records. While Section 39.12(3) required disclosure of juvenile court records to the child, parents, guardians, and their attorneys (records already ordered disclosed), Section 828.041(7) did not provide for disclosure of abuse reports to the guardian or counsel.
[1] A writ of mandamus is appropriate to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty, not to establish such a right.
[2] A party seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate the existence of a clear legal duty imposed by statute upon the respondent.
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“A writ of mandamus is used to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of clear legal duty rather than to establish such a right.”
Establishes the fundamental standard for mandamus relief and the basis for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharlotte Gamble, as legal guardian of minor Cynthia Gamble, sought court records and Division of Family Services records regarding injuries suffered …
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 Clear Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from a final order issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus. We reverse.
Appellee Charlotte Gamble, acting as legal guardian of Cynthia Gamble, filed a motion in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Division of the Circuit Court for an order allowing inspection of court records and records of the Division of Family Services. The court allowed inspection of the court file by appellee’s counsel but denied the motion as to the other records on the grounds it lacked jurisdiction over the records of the Division of Family Services. Appellee then petitioned for writ of mandamus.
In the petition she alleged that state agencies had refused to make available records that would enable her counsel to obtain information on injuries suffered by Cynthia while she was in custody of the court and the Division of Family Services. It was alleged that Sections 39.12(3) and 828.041(7), Florida Statutes (1973), required disclosure of the records to her counsel and allowed the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services no discretion to deny access to the records. An alternative writ of mandamus issued.
The state filed a motion to quash the alternative writ and filed a return. Following a hearing the trial court found appellee was entitled to the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus; whereupon, a peremptory writ was issued ordering that the appellant produce all records pertaining to the placement and care of Cynthia Gamble and any injuries received by her while she was in the custody of the courts and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This appeal ensued.
We are regretfully compelled to say that while there may be other avenues open to appellee to secure the subject matter of the contents of the records, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy.1 A writ of mandamus is used to enforce a clear legal right to the performance of clear legal duty rather than to establish such a right. Fasenmyer v. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1969); State ex rel. Smith v. City of Margate, 155 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
In her petition, appellee failed to establish the existence of a clear legal duty on behalf of appellant to disclose the records to her. She relied on two statutes: Sections 39.12(3) and 828.041(7), Florida Statutes (1973). Section 39.12(3) requires the disclosure of juvenile court records to the child involved, his parents or guardians, and their attorneys. These records were apparently already ordered disclosed by the Juvenile Court’s order. Section 828.041(7),2 Florida Statutes (1973), provided for disclosure to certain other persons of reports of child abuse recorded pursuant to subsection (4) of that section,3 but it did not provide for disclosure of the reports to the abused child’s guardian or counsel. In view of appellee’s failure to demonstrate the existence of a clear legal duty imposed by statute upon appellant, mandamus will not lie against appellant.
Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is quashed.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur. . See Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1976).
. The section was amended and renumbered Section 827.07(7), Fla.Stat. (1975).
.Now Section 827.07(4), Fla.Stat. (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…t v. Panelfab International Corp., 314 So. 2d 196 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). Mandamus is available to enforce an established legal right but not to establish that right. Slaughter v. State ex rel. Harrell, 245 So. 2d 126 (Fla.1st DCA 1971). State v. Gamble, 339 So. 2d 694 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). While we do not necessarily agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the clerk’s duties are divisible into those performed as clerk of the circuit court and those performed as county recorder, we need not consider that determ…
-
Fla. Soc'y OF Newspaper Editors, Inc. v. The Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 543 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ance of a clear legal duty, rather than to establish such a right. State ex rel. Glynn v. McNayr, 133 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1961); State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Hartsfield, 399 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Gamble, 339 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. den., Gamble v. State, 345 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977). The Newspapers argue that even if the Commission’s classification of the documents as confidential is correct, it should not be allowed to close its proceedings merely beca…
-
State ex rel. Alfonso Cortez v. The Honorable E. Randolph Bentley, 457 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…baum v. Cochran, 114 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla.1959). See also Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3, 4 (Fla.1976). The writ is used to enforce “a clear legal right to the performance of clear legal duty rather than to establish such a right.” State v. Gamble, 339 So. 2d 694, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Certiorari denied. See Graham v. State, 372 So. 2d 1363, 1365-66 (Fla.1979) and Hooks v. State, 253 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1044, 92 S.Ct. 1330, 31 L.Ed.2d 587 (1972). SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concu…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heath v. Wada Sue Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1976)
- Fasenmyer v. Louie L. Wainwright, 230 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Clyde M. Smith v. The City OF Margate, 155 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)