In Florida, the “Sunshine” Makes it Hard to Keep Divorce Out of the Public Eye and Keep Your Privacy
Christy Brinkley aside, it is no doubt that the rich and famous continuously seek privacy when going through a divorce. In Florida, however, the rich and famous are not the only people who want to seal their court records during a divorce proceeding. Because Florida is subject to “sunshine laws,” all civil court documents are generally made public absent extraordinary circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that parties seeking dissolution of their marriage are not entitled to a private court proceeding because they are required to use the judicial system. See Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 119 (Fla. 1988). However, the Court has carved out some noticeable exceptions.
Not all family law proceedings are made public. Florida, as a matter of public policy, has certainly made specific civil proceedings confidential, such as adoptions, actions to determine paternity, and juvenile proceedings. And while some states, like California, have taken the extra step to limit public access to divorce proceedings, Florida has not taken that stance finding that a presumption of openness must apply to dissolution proceedings in the same way it applies to other civil proceedings. Furthermore, if you find yourself going through a public divorce, even an agreement between you and your soon-to-be ex-spouse to keep the records private cannot overcome this presumption because parties seeking dissolution of marriage are simply not entitled to private proceedings.
I know what you’re thinking – is it impossible to have my divorce proceeding records sealed? Although it may seem that way, the Florida Supreme Court has stated that closure of court records may occur when it is absolutely necessary to comply with well established public policy that has been laid out in the Florida Constitution, statutes, rules, and case law. As it pertains to dissolution proceedings in Florida, sealing such court records have been necessary to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties, oftentimes children, when substantial compelling circumstances have been demonstrated. It is intended that this exception be applied to protect the interest of minor children from offensive testimony and to protect children in a divorce proceeding, in general. The party wishing to seal the records has the burden to demonstrate that closure is needed to protect the child.
If you wish to seal your dissolution records, you have to make a request to the circuit court in the form of a written motion, such as a “Motion to Make Court Records Confidential.” This motion must: (1) identify the exact records you wish to make confidential without revealing the confidential information and (2) explain your basis for making these records private. In Florida, any court record that is subject to this motion will be treated as confidential until a ruling by the court has been made. It should be noted, however, that keeping your public dissolution proceedings private in Florida is an extremely difficult burden to overcome and judges have discretion in their decision to grant confidentiality. If you feel you have a strong reason to seal your records, consult with an attorney to discuss your full options.
It was Florida’s landmark decision in Bennett v. Bennett, which held that although “a dog may be considered by many to be a member of the family, under Florida law, animals are considered to be personal property.” 655 So. 2d 109, 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In that case, the trial court awarded “custody” or the parties’ dog to the husband and gave visitation rights to the wife. After the judgment was rendered, the wife filed a motion for a change in custody, arguing that her ex-husband was interfering with her visitation rights. And although the trial court granted the wife’s motion, effectively giving her visitation with the dog every other month, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal reversed it in Bennett v. Bennett. This decision put a “nail in the coffin” to the idea that a family pet could garner custody and visitation rights (like a child) after its owners’ divorce. In line with this decision, because a dog is personal property, a Court must award possession of the animal pursuant to the dictates of Florida’s equitable distribution statute. The Bennett court reasoned that this is the appropriate outcome because no authority in Florida case or statutory law enables a trial court to grant custody or visitation pertaining to personal property. 
