Consolidation vs. Coordination

In In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Admin., 132 So.3d 1114 (Fla., 2014), the court adopted Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.003 which provides that all related cases must be handled before one judge unless impractical. Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.270(a), “(w)hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” The Commentary to Rule 1.270 indicates that the court has the authority to order the consolidation of actions, trials, or hearings on any or all matters upon the court’s own initiative or upon motion by a party. The broad language of the rule and the stated rationale that “an action should not be handled piecemeal when it reasonably can be avoided, and it should be administered with the least expense and vexation to the parties” suggests that the rule is applicable to the coordination of a family’s pending cases. Commentary to Rule 1.270.

It is also important to be mindful of closed cases which may contain judgments and orders that will impact pending cases. The court must be aware of and consider any orders or judgments that impact jurisdiction, establish a precedence of orders, or may contain inconsistent rulings. Also, reports, assessments, and histories may be readily available in closed files and provide a more accurate and complete family history. Each circuit should address issues related to coordination of UFC cases in its administrative order. Fla. R. Gen. Practice & Jud. Admin. 2.545(d) requires the petitioner in a family law case to file a Notice of Related Cases, form 12.900(h), if related cases are known or reasonably ascertainable. A case is considered related if:

• it involves the same parties, children, or issues and is pending when the family law case is filed; or
• it affects the court’s jurisdiction to proceed; or
• an order in the related case may conflict with an order on the same issues in the new case; or an order in the new case may conflict with an order in the earlier case.

The court’s focus should be on consistency, coordination, and clarity. Generally,
the court can enter a single order that addresses and coordinates all related
cases. A copy of the order should be filed in all related cases. However, the court
may need to enter separate orders when coordinating pending proceedings with
criminal, domestic violence, or dependency cases.

For example, a judge may modify the bond conditions in a criminal case to make
them consistent with the contact provisions of a domestic violence injunction.
While the orders should be consistent in each case, the bond conditions should be
in a separate order to maintain the integrity of the criminal proceedings and to
provide effective notice of the conditions to law enforcement.

Inconsistent orders can arise when a party to a dissolution of marriage also has an
injunction for protection against domestic violence. The typical scenario is of a
petitioner with an injunction for protection that prohibits all contact between the
parties who then gets a subsequent order in the dissolution case that allows for
contact to exchange children for visitation. Clearly, the court needs to be aware
of the domestic violence issues between the parties to make decisions regarding
visitation and to tailor safe and effective means for exchanging children for
visitation. If some contact for visitation purposes is allowed, the court may need
to enter an amended injunction for protection that clarifies or modifies the
contact the parties may have pursuant to the injunction for protection.

Sometimes an injunction for protection will arise during a pending dissolution of
marriage case. Judges should be aware that §61.052(6), Florida Statutes, requires
that, “[a]ny injunction for protection against domestic violence arising out of the
dissolution of marriage proceeding shall be issued as a separate order in
compliance with chapter 741 and shall not be included in the judgment of
dissolution of marriage.” The separate injunction for protection is filed in national
and state crime information systems so it is readily available to other courts and
law enforcement.

The court may also need separate orders when coordinating proceedings with a
dependency case due to the confidentiality requirements in dependency. For
example, the court may enter a separate order for child support under a civil case
number to make it easily enforceable by the Department of Revenue.

When dealing with related cases, the best way to ensure consistency among
orders is to assign all of a family’s related cases to one judge. Assigning all related
cases to one judge allows the judge to be fully aware of the family’s
interconnected cases, and puts the judge in the best position possible to
effectively coordinate proceedings and to create consistent and meaningful
orders. 

Jurisdiction of the circuit courts is established pursuant to Article V, Section 5 of the Florida
Constitution and is further enumerated in §26.012, Florida Statutes. A circuit judge’s jurisdiction is not limited by court divisions. Willie v. State, 600 So. 2d 479, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) explains that: “[I]t is the court, and not the particular judges thereof, that has jurisdiction over a particular cause, controversy and the parties thereto. (Citation omitted.) Thus,[a]ll circuit judges are empowered to hear and determine any case properly within [that] court’s jurisdiction.”

While circuit courts are often divided into divisions for purposes of administrative efficiency, the
assignment of a circuit judge to a particular division does not limit that judge’s jurisdiction; he or
she continues to possess the authority to exercise the full power conferred on the circuit courts by
the state. Citation omitted.

Similarly, in In the Interest of Peterson, 364 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), the court held,
The circuit court has jurisdiction over all matters concerning the custody and welfare of
children. All circuit court judges have the same jurisdiction within their respective circuits. A
judge in the probate division or the juvenile division or the civil division or the criminal division
has the authority and jurisdiction to hear cases involving child custody and dependency. The
internal operation of the court system and the assignment of judges to various divisions does
not limit a particular judge’s jurisdiction.

The Florida Supreme Court has stated its determination to better serve Florida’s families through its
opinion In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Admin., 132 So.3d 1114 (Fla., 2014) and its
predecessors. These opinions have the force of law and should be referred to when each circuit
creates its administrative order designing and implementing its unified family court. As to the issue of
UFC jurisdiction, the court has said,

[A] family’s interaction with the courts in all circuits shall be administratively coordinated and
monitored in one unified family division, whether that interaction involves dissolutions of
marriage (and attendant determinations of custody, visitation, child support, alimony, and
modifications thereof), cases under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement
Act and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, adoption and paternity; domestic,
repeat, dating, or sexual violence; juvenile delinquency and dependency, termination of
parental rights, or cases of children or families in need of services. In re Report of the
Commission on Family Courts, 633 So. 2d 14, 17 (Fla. 1994) (emphasis added).

Likewise, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.545(d)(2) defines family cases as:

• dissolution of marriage
• annulment
• support unconnected with dissolution of marriage
• paternity
• child support
• UIFSA
• custodial care of and access to children
• proceedings for temporary or concurrent custody of minor children by extended family
• adoption
• name change
• declaratory judgment actions related to premarital, martial, or postmarital agreements
• civil domestic violence injunctions
• repeat violence injunctions
• dating violence injunctions
• stalking injunctions
• sexual violence injunctions
• juvenile dependency
• termination of parental rights
• juvenile delinquency
• emancipation of a minor
• CINS/FINS, truancy
• modification and enforcement of orders entered in these cases

In addition to the directives and guidance already provided by the Florida Supreme Court, it may be
helpful to one day have comprehensive and unified rules of procedure for unified family court cases.
Presently, however, there are several rules of procedure that aid in the transfer and coordination of
cases. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.545 requires the filing of the Notice of Related Cases, Family Law Form 12.900(h), to ensure that all necessary parties, attorneys and judges are aware of related pending cases, and that supplemental notices be sent as related cases become known. In 2014, the Supreme Court issued In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Admin., 132 So.3d 1114 (Fla., 2014) which created Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.003(a)(1). This rule states that all related family cases must be handled before one judge unless impractical. Rule 12.003(2) outlines the procedures to be followed if it is not practical, including consolidating the issues and determining the access of the parties to court records if a related case is confidential. The judges may confer for the purpose of case management and coordination, and either the court or the party that filed the notice of related cases may organize a case management conference under rule 12.200.

Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.004 was also created in 2014 to authorize judges, court staff and court personnel
access and review of related family files, either pending or closed. The rule prohibits disclosure of
confidential information and documents except in accordance with applicable confidentiality laws, and
permits court staff to advise the court about the existence of related legal proceedings.

Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.003(b) allows the court to order joint hearings or trials in related family cases. Fla.
Fam. L.R.P. 12.006 permits the court to file copies of court orders in related family cases involving the
same parties. This rule ensures that the files in each of the related family cases contain copies of
relevant and appropriate orders which will reduce the possibility that judges will enter conflicting
orders in the related cases

Section 741.30, Florida Statutes, allows the petitioner for a domestic violence
injunction to provide his or her address to the court in a confidential filing.
Petitioners should file Family Law Form 12.980(h), Request for Confidential Filing
of Address with the clerk. This is for the safety of the petitioner. The Florida
Legislature enacted the Address Confidentiality Program to “enable state and
local agencies to respond to requests for public records without disclosing the
location of a victim of domestic violence,” pursuant to §741.401, Florida Statutes.
The Attorney General’s office operates the Address Confidentiality Program
pursuant to §§741.401 through 741.409, Florida Statutes. Furthermore,
§741.465(1), Florida Statutes, provides in part that, “The addresses,
corresponding telephone numbers, and social security numbers of program
participants in the Address Confidentiality Program for Victims of Domestic
Violence held by the Office of the Attorney General are exempt from §119.07(1)
and §24 (a), Art. I of the State Constitution.” This information, then, is not a
matter of public record and must be kept confidential. Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.
2.545(d)(4) also states that when a Notice of Related Cases is filed, a Notice of
Confidential Information Within Court Filing, as required by Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.
2.420, must also be filed since the victim’s address is confidential and exempt
from public access by law.

The confidentiality provisions of Chapter 741 are not distinctly cross referenced to
the other statutes that cover related areas of UFC. The clear intent and language
used to create the Address Confidentiality Program indicates that information
made confidential under its provisions must remain confidential regardless of the
context in which the information is kept. If this were not true, then a respondent
to a domestic violence injunction could simply initiate some other court matter as
a means to discover the whereabouts of the petitioner.

When a domestic violence case is related to pending proceedings, the court
should be mindful of these issues of confidentiality and take steps to ensure the
safe keeping of confidential information. Likewise, the person seeking to keep
certain identifying information confidential must be diligent in informing the
court and clerk of the request for confidentiality, and must not disclose the
information on his or her own in other court documents.