D.J., L.J., AND D.J., PETITIONERS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioners who were formerly dependent children in DCF custody and later adopted are entitled to mandamus relief requiring the adoption court to conduct proceedings on their motion to inspect and copy records from their closed adoption case pursuant to Florida Statute § 63.162(2).
Formerly dependent children are entitled to mandamus relief to compel the adoption court to exercise jurisdiction and conduct proceedings on their motion to inspect and copy records from their closed adoption case.
[1] A formerly dependent child may seek mandamus relief to compel an adoption court to conduct proceedings on a motion to inspect and copy records from a closed adoption case…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree petitioners were dependent children in DCF custody, were later adopted by their foster mother, and claim they were abused by their adoptive moth…
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 Dependent Child cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners are formerly dependent children who were in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF) prior to termination of parental rights and their adoption. They claim that they were abused by their foster, later adoptive, mother while in DCF custody and even after their adoption. They are investigating negligence and civil rights claims as a result. With that purpose, they filed a motion for order authorizing inspection and copying of DCF records in their closed adoption ease. The presiding judge denied the motion without prejudice to petitioners’ right to seek relief in a separate civil action, noting that the adoption case had been closed. The judge entered a subsequent order denying rehearing, noting that petitioners had requested opening of the closed adoption court fíle as well as other pertinent DCF records. She suggested that “more appropriate relief’ may be available by a pure bill of discovery.
Petitioners have demonstrated entitlement to mandamus relief insofar as they seek to have the judge in the closed adoption case exercise jurisdiction over their request to inspect and copy records from the that case. See § 63.162(2), Fla. Stat. (2003). See also Dep’t. of Health, Office of Vital Statistics v. Adoption of Gilli, 746 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Dixon v. Melton, 515 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
We grant the petition and direct the judge in the closed adoption case to conduct proceedings pursuant to section 63.162 of the Florida Statutes on petitioners’ motion to inspect and copy records forthwith.
FARMER, C.J., KLEIN, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. Melton, 515 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Dep't of Health v. The Adoption OF Baby Gilli, 746 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)