This is an excerpt from the Introduction of the 2021-2022 Chair of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar by Jeffrey A. Weissman, Esq. Gladstone and Weissman, P.A. from the Section’s Award & Installation Ceremony held June 9, 2021
"In her new role as Chair of the Family Law Section, Heather (Apicella) will bring an inclusive disposition to the table. She will work with the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, as she welcomes the collaboration and partnership. She will make sure that nothing but the best work product comes out of the Family Law Section Committees, and that the Section’s goals are pursued and protected. And she will create opportunity for others who aspire to rise in the Section. To know Heather is to like Heather. She will foster relationships with all of you and other sections of the Bar. But make no mistake about it, she will fight when there is a need to fight. Heather knows how to balance diplomacy with strength. Our status, respect and reputation will only rise during her tenure.
I just want to say something a bit personal. Heather’s happiest moments are the ones that she spends with her two girls, who she is incredibly proud of and both of whom are truly the most important in her life.
Heather, I am beyond fortunate to know you and have you in my life. I learn from you each and every day. You are a fantastic human being. I am so proud of you and know that you will serve this office with dignity, grace, and excellence. Congratulations and best wishes for much continued success on this new journey."
We couldn't have said it better ourselves! Welcome and congratulations, Heather!
|
|
Get ready to join your fellow Section members and Family Law peers (in person!) for these educational, inspirational (and fun) programs lined up for 2021-2022. Save these dates and we look forward to seeing you soon!
|
|
|
IN-PERSON
VIRTUAL
Thurs., July 20, 12PM: Facebook Live Presentation, 'How to use a Tax Return to Prepare a Financial Affidavit,' with Melinda N. Mergelsberg, CPA, CVA, of Kaufman Rossin. The 20-minute session will cover 1. Determining income, 2. Identifying certain expenses, and 3. Identifying assets and liabilities. Tune in on our Facebook page here: facebook.com/familylawfla.
|
|
|
In case you missed it, click to view the 2020-2021 Membership Awards & Installation Presentation, announcing this year's outstanding award winners, and formalizing our 2021-2022 Executive Committee and Executive Council leadership transition.
Congratulations to each and every award recipient, and thank you to our Immediate Past Chair, Douglas Greenbaum, for your incredible leadership over the past year!
|
|
The Family Law Section is committed to supporting causes and issues that align with our mission of helping Florida families. We are honored to announce three recent contributions:
- $75,000 to the Florida Bar Foundation in support of Children's Legal Services
- $5,000 to the victims of the Surfside Condominium tragedy*
- $2,500 Florida Chapter of Family and Conciliation Courts*
We look forward to continuing our Section's initiatives in the year ahead. Thank you for your membership, and thank you to our sponsors - your involvement in the Section is more appreciated that you know!
*Executive Council voted to approve and allocate said funds on behalf of the Family Law Section.
|
|
Dean v. Bevis, 2021 WL 2272444 (Fla 2nd DCA 2021) – A temporary injunction against stalking in favor of Ms. Bevis was entered ex-parte against Mr. Dean. The sole issue addressed in this opinion was whether the trial court had the authority to order the respondent to be prohibited from possessing any firearms or ammunition through the issuance of a temporary injunction against stalking. The trial court used the “catchall” provision of § 784.0485(5)(a): “If it appears to the court that stalking exists, the court may grant a temporary injunction ex parte, pending a full hearing, and may grant such relief as the court deems proper, including an injunction restraining the respondent from committing any act of stalking.”
The Court applied § 784.0485(5)(a) as a basis to order the surrender of firearms and ammunition. Dean was ordered to surrender them to law enforcement and subsequently filed a motion for immediate release of his property, which was denied by the trial court. Dean filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of his motion for return of property arguing that the trial court did not have the authority to order the seizure of his firearms and ammunition based solely on a temporary injunction for stalking. Dean argued that his Florida Constitutional right to keep and bears arms was violated when the trial court entered the temporary injunction which ordered that he “shall not use or possess a firearm or ammunition” and that he “shall surrender all firearms and ammunition” that he possessed. The Court reversed the denial of Dean’s motion for immediate release of property and affirmed the temporary injunction.
Succinctly, the Court’s opinion states that the right to bear arms granted by the Florida Constitution is not absolute and is subject to the right of the people to enact valid police regulations to promote the health, morals, safety, and general welfare of the people. Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So. 2d 661, 666 (Fla. 1972). Furthermore, the legislature specifically addressed the issue of possession of firearms by a person who has been issued a final injunction. The legislature did not include the express authority to order the surrender of firearms and ammunition for the issuance of a temporary injunction and therefore the “catchall” provision of § 784.0485(5)(a). Therefore, the trial court does not have the authority to do so in every case.
Specific to the facts of the instant case, Bevis did not allege any express threat of physical violence against her, and she did not allege any express or implied threat of the use of a firearm or any other weapon against her. In short, Bevis's allegations do not show that Dean posed a significant danger to Bevis or anyone else for personal injury based on his possession of a firearm. Under the limited allegations contained in her petition, the trial court erred by relying on the provision that it “may grant such relief as the court deems proper,” § 784.0485(5)(a), to include in the temporary stalking injunction provisions that infringed upon Dean's constitutional right to keep and bear arms as provided for in the Florida Constitution. See Art. I, § 8, Fla. Const.
|
|
When people complain about annoying techies, they’re probably talking about me. I have every gadget imaginable, including a computer I built myself. That technology has been a big help during the quarantine, allowed me to work from home, and even attend hearings from my car.
Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6 requires us to keep client information confidential. But when every place is a workspace, confidentiality is at risk. People walk around in public with their cellphones on speaker. Your inbox is filled with spam and viruses. Siri and Alexa are listening right now.
Other than exchanging all that tech for a quill and parchment, what can you do? Here are a few suggestions. For one, lock your computer, phones, and tablets when you’re not using them. Use the built-in facial scan and fingerprint reader on your new devices. If your equipment is older, you can buy an external biometric scanner.
Get a good password app. Geeks like me use a security key (yes, a physical key) before logging into certain accounts. Use two factor authorization for extra protection. Update your software. Be suspicious of all email attachments. Encrypt everything. And turn your speaker phone off in public.
|
|
Although we are far closer than we were a year ago, we are still a long way to go before dusting off our shoes and suit bottoms and being ready to go to live, in-person hearings.
Nonetheless, the rumblings are that many Zoom-based hearings may be here to stay in addition to other digital proceedings such as motion calendars, depositions, and mediations. Although it has taken lawyers and cats alike (one of which is currently writing this article) some time to adapt to the virtual courtroom, clients have been much slower to catch on.
Also, the socio-economical, cultural, and technological curve that virtual Court creates needs to be balanced to truly maintain the access to justice entitled to all Florida families.
Here are some things we must consider when navigating the access to justice versus the Zoom courtroom:
Understand that technology could be the great equalizer or great divider. This is important to note when representing socioeconomically disadvantaged parties. When you think about how much technology is a part of our day-to-day life, from immediate deliveries to pre-ordered meals, we can easily forget that some of this is just not accessible to a significant group of people, with people of color being gravely affected. 34% of Black households and 39% of Latinx households do not have wired broadband connection. As legal professionals who service all people, it is imperative that we be aware of this divide and try to do everything we can to help make sure that these families have equal access to justice.
Test your client’s “tech literacy.” Despite the open access to technology, it is still an unfamiliar experience for many of our clients. At the beginning of a contested case, make sure you understand how familiar your client is with technology. Make sure they know that at some point that they will need to make use of the technology for a hearing, deposition, or even mediation. They are already going to be overwhelmed and stressed during such a difficult time. Knowing how to turn on the video, mute, and change settings will only make it worse.
Laptop versus Cellphone. Despite that the Zoom platform is available on both computers and cellphones, the preference should be the former. The screen is typically larger, more features are available, and the ability to review and note shared documents is much easier. If your client does not have access to a computer, consider having them come to your office and use one of your computers (if available). You will also want to consider this if there are concerns regarding internet connection. I would argue that having a simple laptop with web capabilities may be imperative in our practices if a client has no other reliable access to a consistent device or internet. If this is not possible, request that the Court allow your client to appear via telephone by filing the appropriate motion to allow your client to appear by telephone. Hopefully, the Court and/or opposing counsel will be understanding and allow for alternative access.
As we navigate this process, we need to keep in mind that this is already a trying time for all the parties involved. Having the challenges of technology or lack thereof can only make it more of a struggle. It is paramount that we are mindful that everyone deserves their day in Court and we should do what we can to ensure that it happens.
|
|
If your business would like to reach nearly 4,000 Family Law professionals, we invite you to consider an Annual Sponsorship! To learn more about benefits and levels, email sponsorship@familylawfla.org or click HERE to learn more. Thank you for your support!
|
|
If you have a topic of interest regarding Family Law and you'd like to submit an article for our monthly e-Newsletter, FAMSEG, or our quarterly publication, The Commentator, email publications@familylawfla.org for more information. Thank you for your interest in contributing to our member publications!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|