Fl. Fam. Law. R. P. 12.650
Commentary
This rule implements the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 653, providing for a state court to override a family violence indicator on a record at the Federal Parent Locator Service. It does not apply to any other proceeding involving family violence or any other court records. The limitations on access to the Federal Parent Locator Service and this override process are governed by federal law.
Proceedings under this rule would arise when an authorized person has attempted to obtain information from the Federal Parent Locator Service but has been notified that the information cannot be released because of a family violence indicator. For example, a petitioner may be a noncustodial parent who has attempted to serve the custodial parent in an action to enforce visitation but was unable to effect service of process on the custodial parent. The court may have authorized access to the Federal Parent Locator Service in order to locate the custodial parent for purposes of service of process. If the report from the Federal Parent Locator Service indicates that the information cannot be released because of a family violence indicator, the noncustodial parent would be authorized to petition the court pursuant to this rule to override the family violence indicator.
The purpose of these proceedings is to determine whether to release location information from the Federal Parent Locator Service notwithstanding the family violence indicator. The court must determine whether release of the location information to the petitioner would be harmful to the respondent. If the court determines that release of the location information would not be harmful, the information may be released to the petitioner. If the respondent agrees to designate a third party for service of process, the court may deny the request for location information. In these circumstances, the designation of a third party for service of process is procedural only and does not provide a separate basis for jurisdiction over the respondent.
The court must use care to ensure that information from the Federal Parent Locator Service or other location information in the court record is not inadvertently released to the petitioner, thus defeating any interest of the respondent in maintaining nondisclosure.
The name of the state that placed the family violence indicator on the record may assist the petitioner in obtaining access to the respondent. If the name of the state that placed the family violence indicator on the record is supplied from the Federal Parent Locator Service, but an address for the respondent is not provided, the court should not release the name of the state to the petitioner. Disclosure of this information could assist the petitioner in locating the respondent, may place the respondent in danger, and does not give the respondent an opportunity to be heard by the court prior to release of the information.
Because the interest of the respondent is to keep location information from the petitioner, having both the petitioner and respondent appear at a hearing at the same time may also result in the petitioner obtaining location information about the respondent. If a hearing must be held where both the petitioner and respondent are present, the court should use whatever security measures are available to prevent inadvertent disclosure of the respondent's location information.
Each state establishes its own criteria, consistent with federal law, for placing a family violence indicator on a record. Some states require a judicial determination of domestic violence or child abuse before a family violence indicator is placed on a record. The criteria for a family violence indicator in Florida are in section 61.1825, Florida Statutes.
The records in these proceedings are confidential under 42 U.S.C. §§ 653 and 654. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 [renumbered as 2.420 in 2006] also exempts from public disclosure any records made confidential by federal law.
Committee Note
2008 Amendment. Chapter 2008-61, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 2008, eliminated such terms as "custodial parent," "noncustodial parent," and "visitation" from Chapter 61, Florida Statutes. Instead, the court adopts or establishes a parenting plan that includes, among other things, a time-sharing schedule for the minor children. These statutory changes are reflected in the amendments to the definitions in this rule. However, because 42 U.S.C. § 653 includes the terms "custody" and "visitation," these terms have not been excised from the remainder of the rule.