WE WILL CALL THE NEXT CASE F OR ALL THAT AP PEAR IN RAY AMENDMENTS TO THE APPELLATE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. J ACK RE ITER APPEARING FORTHE APPE LLATE RULES COMMITTEE. I WILL S P EAK ON THE ISSUE WITH THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM AND THE DISCUSSION OF THAT AS WELL. THE COMM ITTEE AFTER REVIEW B Y THE FAMILY LAW SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEMAJ ORITY OF THE FAMILY LAW SUBCOMMITTEE AND MAJORITY OF THE FULL COMMITTEE , BELIEVETHAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE T O ALLOW THE O RDER OF CUSTODY , IN A NONFINAL CUSTODY ORDER IN THE DEPENDENCY OR SHE LTER CARE TYPE PROC EEDING OR TERMI NATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING BUT A NONFINAL ORDER , PRELIMINARY NON FINAL ORDER TO BE IMMEDIATELY REVIEWABLE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET'S GO OVER WHAT , SPECIF ICALLY , RIGHT NOW THE FINAL ORDER , ADJUDICATION OF DEPENDENCY AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE SU BJECT TO REVIEW AS APPEALED FROM FI NAL ORDER. CORRECT?

CORR ECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THEN EVERYTHING EL SE, THERE CAN BE A PE TITION FOR CERT FILED. WELL , OBVIOUSLY IT CA N B E FILED, WHE THER IT IS HEARD. IS THE RULE ALLOW ING, WOULD ALLOW NONFINAL ORDERS , NOT ONLY FOR THE SHELTER ORDER BUT FOR EVERY PLACEMENT CHANGE THAT OCCURS D URING THE EN TIRE PROCESS UN TIL THE FINAL ORDER OF PARENTAL TERMINATION OF RIGHTS?

THAT IS WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE RULE , YES , BEC AUSE , AG AIN , OF THE OVERWHELMING NEED FOR REVIEW AND EXAMINED BY THE COMMITTEE AS MAJORITY , T O BALANCE NOT ONLY THE SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT RIGHTS OF THE CHIRP BUT ALSO THE CON -- OF THE CHILDREN,BUT ALSO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PARENT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HEARD A CASE WHERE THERE WERE T WO INTERLOCK TORY PROCEEDINGS. IT IT APPEARS THAT THIS CASE WENT BEYOND NOT ONLY A YEAR BUT FOUR YEARS, AND I AM VERY, VERY CONCERNED, BECAUSE , OF COURSE , WE HAVE PARENTS' ATTO RNEYS PAID FORBY THE STATE. THEY ST ILL DON'T HAVE CHILDREN'S ATTORNEYS FORMOST OF THE CHILDREN THAT WE ARE GOING TO ESSENTIALLY AUTHORIZE NONFINAL APPEAL S F ROM EVERY, AND OF COURSE NOW WE HEARD THAT MAGISTRATES ARE HEARING THESE INTERLOCKTORY ORDERS . FROM AN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND A CONC ERN THAT TERMINATION OF PERMANENCY IS SUPPOSED TO BE MADE UNDER FEDERAL LAW WITHIN A YEAR, A YEAR , I AM JUST REALLY .

THAT WAS REALLY BROUGHT IN AT THE DISCUSSION AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL. THERE ARE S E VERAL FACTORS THAT WEIGH IN ON THAT ISSUE. FIRST OF ALL UNDER 9.130 WHEN READ TOGETHER WITH 9.136, THERE IS A INHERENT EXPEDITED MECHANISM. IF THERE IS ANY SO RT OF CUSTODY OR A CUSTODYORD PER IN PLACE ON A NONFINAL BASIS , AS YOUR HONOR POINTED OUT , THESE DEPENDENCY, THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MADE WITHIN AYEAR, SO CERTAINLY, IF THEREIS A ORDER , INTERLOCKTORY OR FINAL NONCUSTODY HEARING,THAT TIME WHEN THAT ORIGINAL DECISION AND THE ONE YEAR, PERIOD, IF THERE WAS AN E RROR --

JUSTICE: DO WE HAVE ANY STATISTICS WHICH WOULD SHOW US HOW MA NY CERT, OF THESE C ERT PETITIONS ARE GRANTED?

NO , YOUR HON OR.

JUSTICE: WHERE THERE IS TAKEN THESE CASE S BY THE DISTRICT COURTS?

NO. THAT EVAL UATION WAS NOT DONE .

JUSTICE: OK AY. NOW , WHAT WE WOULD HAVE , THOUGH, IF THE RULE I S CHANGED, IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL EVERYONE OF THEM. CORRECT?

ANY CUSTODY DECI SION IN ANY DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS, YES .

JUSTICE: SO WOULD YOU ESSENTIALLY RUN INTO APROBLEM OF THE DEVELOPMENTOF THE LAW OF THE CASE ON INTERLOCK TORY BASIS?

I DON'T THINK SO , Y OUR H ONOR, BECAUSE I BEL IEVE THE NONFINAL DECISION WOULD ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO FU RTHER REVIEW ON FINAL REVIEW OR COULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER DETERMINATION.SEE , YOUR HONOR , THE TRIAL COURT HAS CON TINUING JURISDICTION TO ENTER ANY ORDER TO EN ABLE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, AND CERTAINLY THE TAKING OF THISAPPEAL WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SORT OF AUTOMATIC STA Y.

JUSTICE: WHY ISN'T THE PRESENT SYSTEM, THOUGH , WHERE WE HAVE THE IM MENSE FLEXIBILITY , THAT IS I F SOMEBODY CAN REALLY MAKE OUT A CASE IN A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI , THAT A REAL PROBLEM HAS AR ISEN , THAT THERE IS REALLY, ANDTHEY CAN MAKE THAT CASE OUT , WE REALLY HAVE IN THAT SINGLE INSTANCE , AS O PPOSED T O THE FULL PANOPLY OF NONFINAL RIGHTS , AS FAR AS REVIEW IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL , WHY , WHAT IS THE PROBLEM , OTHER THAN WHAT YOU ALL CONSISTENCYP OINT OUT THAT O VER IN F AMILY LAW , YOU KNOW, THEY CAN DO THIS BUT IN THE DEPENDENCY SYSTEM THAT THEY CAN'T. OTHER THAN THAT , OKAY , WHY ISN'T THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE PRE SENT SYSTEM ADEQUATE T O ADDRESS ANY REAL INSTANCES OF IN JUSTICE?

WELL , OF COURSE, AS YOUPOINTED OUT , WE HAVE THIS INCONGRUITY BETWEEN HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO BE IN THE FAMI LY LAW SE TTING , BUTBEYOND THAT THE CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED AND DISCUSSED AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL , BY MR . KURSKOW SKI , WHO WAS HIS O WN ATTORNEY IN THE M A TTER AND THE RULE , CONCERNED WITH STANDARDS OF REVIEW AND THE RIGHT OF REVIEW, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI I S CURRENTLY FAVORED AND PERHAPS THE ONLY MECHANISM UTILIZED BY INDIVIDUA LS WHOARE SEEKING REVIEW OF THIS TYPE OF NONFINAL ORDER AND , OF COURSE , CERTIO RARI, THESTANDARD OF EVEN APPE LLATE JURISDICTION THROUGH APETITION, IS M UCH HI GHER ANDOF COURSE IN SOME INSTANCES IT WOULD BE AL MOST IMPOS SIBLE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH STANDARD THAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS .

JUSTICE: PART OF THE BASIS OF THAT ARGUMENT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO LOGICAL REA SON TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A CUSTODY MATTER AND DEPENDENCY AND TERMINATION. CAN YOU REALLY A D DRESS THAT ISSUE, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING UNDE R THE LAW IN A TY PICAL DIVORCE CUSTODY, IT IS SH ARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. YOU ARE HAVING THE K ID S GOING BACK AND FORTH, ANDTHAT IS THE NORMAL SITUATION. ISN'T THAT MU CH , AND THERE IS NOT A GUARDIAN AD L ITEM , ATTORNEY AD LITEM AND ALL OF THE OTHER RESOURCES , PSYCHOLOGISTS AND ALL OF THE OTHER RESO URCES DI RECTED TOWARDS DEPENDENCY CASES , SO ISN'T IT , I SN'T THAT , DOES THAT ARGUMENT REALLY HOLD ANY WEIGHT THAT THERE IS NO REAL DIFF ERENCE BETW EEN A DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE , CUSTODY CASE AND --

I THINK THE ARGUMENT STILL HOLDS WE IGHT , YOUR HONOR. I AGREE WITH YOU OF COURSE , THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A TYPICAL DIV ORCE CONTEXT AND CUSTODY DISPUTE , AND THESE TYPES OF INSTANCES AND PROCEEDINGS THAT WE AREDISCUSSING HE RE, ALTH OUGH I THINK STIPULATIONS THEY MAY OVERLAP.SOMETIMES IN A CUSTODY PROCEEDING, THE ISSUES ARISE, BUT I THINK AT THE HEART OF THE ISSUE F ROM THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN , WHICH ARE CERT AINLY AS SIGNIFICANT IN THE DEPENDENCY PROCEEDI NG AS THEY ARE IN THE FAMILY PROCEEDING , AND WHAT WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO DO AND AS I LISTENED TO DISCUSSIONS AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL AND LOOKED BACK U PON THE MINUTES , WHAT WAS ATTEMPTING TO BE ESTABLISHED HERE WAS TO FORM SOME KIND OF CONGRUITY BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN WH ICH ARE OBVIOUSLY PARAMOUNT BUT NOT TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THEPARENTS , WHO THE DECISION MAY ACTUALLY BE INCORRECT , IF THE DECISION TO TAK E THE CHILD OUT SIDE OF A S I TUATION MAY BE THE W RONG DECISION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE CAN TERO HAS A QUESTION.

WITHOUT GIVING THEOPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A RIGHT OF IMMEDIATE REVIEW, I THINKTHAT IS WHERE THE PARALLEL IS IMPORTANT, YOUR HONOR, BETWEEN THE FAMILY CONTEXTAND THE DEPENDENCY CONTEXT. THE SIGNIF ICANT B OND BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD THAT IS FORCED TO WAIT A YEAR COULD THEN BE DESTROYED.

JUSTICE: I WAS GOING BACK TO THE DIFFERENT STANDARDSOF REVIEW. IT SEEMS TO ME ON CERTIORARI , YOU COULD DEFINITELY SHOW IRREPARABLE HARM ON APPEAL, BECAUSE YOUR CHILD HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY , AND SO WE ARE LEFT WITH THE STANDARD OF DEPART FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. DO YOU K NOW HOW COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THAT STANDARD IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES ANDWHETHER IT IS A G ROSS ABUSE OF DISC RETION IN THESE CASES OR WHETHER YOU HAVE TO HAVE, JUST BEEN CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LAW WOULD D I CTATE IN THAT CASE?

I DO NOT KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW THE COURTS, WHEN THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THE, THESE TYPES OF ISSUES THROUGH CERTIORARI , AGAIN, THERE WAS NO ANALOGOUS DONE AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL SPECIFICALLY TO DE TERMINE HOW THEY HANDLED THE RIGHT OF REVIEW. ONE WOULD THINK IF IMP ORTANT ENOUGH, HOPEFULLY THE COURTWOULD TAKE REVIEW AND DEPART FROM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE INSTANCES, AGAIN , THOUGH, GOING BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCESBETWEEN THE STANDARDS, WHI CHIS WHAT REALLY MOTIVATE ADD LOT OF THE DECISION-MAKINGAT THIS LEVEL, BECAUSE THESESTANDARDS ARE INHERENTLY DIFFERENT WHEN A RIGHT OF APPEAL AND RIGHT TO HAVE THAT DAY IN COURT ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS WITHOUT ARECORD BEING TRANSMATE MYTHED, SO THE - - TRANSMITTED , SO THE FEARS OF DELAY , I THINK , ARE MINIMIZED , A S O PPOSED TO A CERTIORARI DECISION WHERE THE RESPONSE IS REQUIRED, THE PERSON SE EKING THAT REVIEW HAS TO OB TAIN THAT THRESHOLD AND HAVE TO OVERCOME WHAT IS HISTORICALLY A VERY HIGH THRESHOLD.

THE CERTIORARI PROCESS , ALTHOUGH THE STANDARD MAY BE HIGHER, IT DOES SEEM TO BE A M ORE EXPEDITED PROCESS THAN A NONFINAL REVIEW.

IN SOME WAY S IT MIGHT BE , YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THE CERT, THE PETITION HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS AS OP POSED TO A NOTIC E OF APPEAL , BUT THE EXPEDITED PROCEEDINGS S AID FORT UNDER 9.130 , IN SOME DEGREES THE TIME LIMITATIONS ARE VERY CLOSE. ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE FLIP SI DE IS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI MAY BE FILEDAND THEN THE COURT MAY NOT ISSUE A SHOW-CAUSE ORDER REQUIRING A RESPONSE FORSOME PERIOD OF TIME , PERHAPS FOR WHATEVER REASON , PERHAPSIT IS UNDERGOING REVIEW AND THERE IS A DECISION TO BE MADE AS TO WHETHER THAT THRESHOLD DEPARTURE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE PETITION , IN A NONFINAL APPEAL . THE NOTICE HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT IN THESE INSTANCES IT WOULD BE DONE MUCH MORE QUICKLY . BRIEFS HAVE TO BE FILED 15 DAYS LATER AND ALL O F THESE MATTERS CAN BE DEALT WITH ON AN EXP EDITED BASIS. UNDER 9.14 6 I THINK SUBSECTION G , APPE LLATE COU RTS ARE SU PPOSED TO GIVE THESE APPEALS AND FINAL APPEALS , THESE EXPE DITED CONSIDERATIONS.

JUSTICE: IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL PA Y TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO THAT PROVISION IN AN EXPEDITED BASIS.

THEN THE LITIGANTS HAVE TO RE MIND THE COURT WITH MOTIONS TO EXPEDITE AND CITING TO THE RULE AND VIGOROUSLY REQUESTING THATTHE COURTS QUICKLY ADDR ES S THESE ISSUES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE IN YOUR REBUTTAL .

JUSTICE: I WILL WAIT TOTHE NEXT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE L EWIS. NO. WE WILL LET YOU , WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME.WOULD YOU MIND IF WE GI VE A MINUTE OR TWO TO ASK MR . ABRAMOWITZ SOME QUESTIONS.

NO. CERTAINLY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GO AHEAD BUT I AM NOT GOING TO CALL ON YOU YET. MR . YOUNG.

MAY IT PLEASE THE CO URT. MY NAME IS TOM YOUNG , AND I LL HERE ON BEHALF THE STATEWIDE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM. CHIEF I SEE YOU ARE FROM ORLANDO.I TH OUGHT O R LANDO IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT ISN'T PART OF THE STA TEWIDE GUARDIAN AD LITEM.

THAT IS THE IRONY, YOUR HONOR.I WAS LI VING IN ORL ANDO WHEN I MET MISS O R KIN, WH O IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SO WE BASE OUR APPELLATE PROGRAMOUT OF ORLANDO. OUR COMMENTS ARE BASED ON OUR EXPE RIENCE , SINCE IMPLEMENTING OUR STAT EWIDE APPELLATE PROGRAM , WHICH WE DID LAST OCTO BER A FTER TAKING ABOUT 18 MONTHS TO STUDY .

CHIEF JUSTICE: COULD YOU JUST GIVE ME, I READ YOUR COMMENT , WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE. WHAT IS THE PO SITION OF THE STATEWIDE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM?

WELL, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO 9. 130- A -3-C-3 , OURPOSITION IS THAT AN AMENDMENT IS NOT NECESSARY. THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GO INTO THE MIX , IF YOUWILL, AND IN DETERMINING HOW F AST SOME THING MOVES. FOR INSTANCE , IF A PARENT WANTS TO TAKE AN APPEAL , T HEY HAVE TO PETITION THE CIRCUIT COURT TO APPOINT AN APPELLATE LAWYER. ACROSS THE STATE, THERE ARE V ERY FEW PARENTS' ATTORNEYS WHO ARE REPRESENTING THE PARENTS IN THE TR IAL COURTTHAT ARE , WHO ARE ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THEM ON APPEAL AS WELL.THERE ARE SOME , BUT I WOULDSAY THE MAJORITY OF CASES , IT IS A NEW APPELLATE LAWYER , AND SO THAT ADDS PART OF THE DELAY. WITH RE GARD TO CERTIORARI , I CAN JUST TELL YOU ANECDOTALLY , THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES THAT WE SEE COME THROUGH OUR OF FICE ARE INITIATED B Y THE FILING AFTER NOTICE OF APPEAL , EVEN WHEN IT IS A NONFINAL ORDER , AND ONLY IN THE SE COND DISTRICT ARE WE SEE ING APPELLATE LAWYERS , ONCE APPOINTED , EVALUATING AND SAYING, O H, WE NEED TO FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI , SO THEN THEY ARE FOLLOWINGUP WITH A PETITION , AND IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES , THESE THINGS ARE PROCEEDING LIKE A DIRECT APPEAL.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I AM NOT SURE, IS THE POSITION THAT YOU AG REE WITH THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURECOMMITTEE, THAT THEY SHOULD BE NONFINAL ORDERS?

WELL , YOUR HONOR --

CHIEF JUSTICE: BECAUSE ITHOUGHT THAT IT SAID THATTHE AMEN DMENT SHOU LD B E EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO SH ELTER ORDERS.

WE BELI EVE THAT THEY ARECLEARLY NONFINAL ORDERS , BECAUSE WITHIN 44 OR 79 DAYS , THERE WILL BE A FINAL ORDER OF ADJUDICATION , SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE CU RRENT RULES ARE SUFFIC IENT FOR THESE REASONS . THE STANDARD FOR SHELTERING IS PROBABLE CAUSE , AND THE STANDARD OF REVIEW OF PROBABLE CAUSE IS LARGELY DE NOVO. YOU YOU DO G ET SOME DEFERENCE TO THE FACT FINDER ON WHAT IS HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND FACTS , BUT AS TO WHETHER THOSE FACTS CONSTITUTE PROB ABLE CAUS E, THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IS DE NOVO. THEREFORE IF THERE IS A DEP ARTURE FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW , YOU CAN EASILY ESTABLISH THAT THROUGH CERTIORARI , BECAUSE , YES , YOUR HONOR .

JUSTICE: I GUESS THE PROBLEM AS I SEE IT , IS THAT IF YOU L OOK BACK AT THE REASON FOR HAVING IMMEDIATE REVIEW IN FAMILIAR CASES , I W OULD AS SUME WOULD BE THAT, THERE IS A CERT AIN DISRUPTION OF THE WHOLE FAMILY UNIT , OF DEPENDING ON WHERE THE CUSTODY GOES , AND WE ARE LO OKING AT THESE IN LIGHT OF THE BEST INTERESTSOF THE CHILDREN , CORRECT?

CORRECT.

JUSTICE: SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHILDREN ARE IN THE BEST CUSTODY POSITIONS OR GE TTING THE KIND OF MON ETARY RE LIEF THAT IS N E EDED , SO WE A LLOW THESE NONFINAL ORDERS TO BE APPEAL , BUT DOES THOSE SAME INTERESTS COM PEL, AS MAYBE HEA RING THESE OTHER KINDS OF CASES ON A NONFINAL APPEAL , ALSO? I ME AN, YOU STILL HAVE, IN A DEPENDENCY SITUATION , A TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS SITUATION, WE S T ILL H AVE THE DIS RUPTION OF THE FAMILY UNIT, AND CHILDREN NOT GOING T O AN OTHER PARENT BUT TO THE STATE , SO AREN'T THOSE INTE RESTS EVEN HI GHER IN THOSE KI NDS OF CASES?

YOUR HONOR , I THIN K, I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUE STION , AND I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT, NO , AND THE REASON FOR THAT I S BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE NESS OF DEPENDENCY CASES. FOR INSTANCE IN A FAMILY LAW CONTEXT , YOU STILL ONLY HAVE A SIN GLE FINAL ORDER. THAT IS THE ORDER DISSOLVING THE MARRIA GE AND AWARDING CUSTODY. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF THE PARENTS DIVORCE WHEN THECHILD IS FIVE AND THERE IS AFINAL ORDER OF DISSOLUTION , AND THE ORDER GRANTING CUSTODY TO THE MOM --

JUSTICE: BUT I THOUGHTTHIS RULE ALLOWED AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER THAT IS NOT THE FINAL ORDER OF DISSOLUTION AND CHILD CUSTODY , BUT A TEMPORARY ORDER OF CHILD CUSTODY. DOESN'T THIS RULE APPLY IN THAT SITUATION?

WELL , YOUR HONOR , IT WOULD, IT WOULD APPLY IN THAT SITUATION, BUT IT WOULD , ALSO , APPLY IN A POST DISSOLUTION PROCEEDING , AND I BEL IEVE THAT IS MORE WHAT THE RULE GOES TO, BECAUSEFOR INSTANCE , IF A FTER DISSO LUTION AND THE CHILDHAS BEEN WITH THE MOM FORFOUR YE ARS, THE FATHER COMESIN AND MOVES FOR CH ANGE OF CUSTODY , THERE IS NOT GOINGTO BE ANOTHER FINAL ORDER , SO THIS IS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE PARENTS ARE ABLE TO GET REVIEW OF A POST DISSOLUTION CHANGE OF CUSTODY : IN THE CONTEXT O F DEPENDENCY , PARENTS CAN SEEK REVIEW OF A SHELTER ORDER THROUGH CERTIORARI AND THERE IS GOING TO BE A FINAL ORDER THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL , WITHIN 44-TO-79 DAYS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT I S A DEPENDENCY, ORDER OF DEPENDENCY.

ORDER OF DEPENDEN CY. EXACTLY. SO REALLY WHAT YOU HAVE IN DEPENDENCY THAT YOU YOU DON'T HAVE IN FAMILY LAW, IS YOU REALLY HAVE TWO OPPORTUNITIES.YOU HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY IMMEDIATELY THROUGH CERTIORARI, AND WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS , YOU HAVETHE RIGHT TO A DIRECT APPEAL ON AN ORDER OF ADJUDICATION .

JUSTICE: DID THE ORDER O F DEPENDENCY HE LD TO BE A FINAL ORDER?

YOUR HONOR , IN THE G LF CASE , THE COURT HELD THAT AN ADJUDICATION ORDER AND DISPOSITIONORD ZR APPEALABLE , AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS A TER MINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASE BUT IT WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO DEPENDENCY .

JUSTICE: I KNOW THAT IF PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE TERMINATED, THAT IS CERTAINLY A FINAL ORDER , BEFORE THAT IF A CHILD IS ADJUDICATED DEPENDENT , I A M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHETHER THE CASES SAY THAT IS A FINAL ORDER OR WHETHER IT IS APPEALABLE AS A NONFINAL ORDER.

I CAN SAY , YOUR HONOR , THE COURTS ARE T REATING THOSE AS A FINAL ORDER. I DON'T KNO W THAT THERE IS A CASE THAT EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I GUESSYOUR POSITION WOULD BE THAT THAT THOSE ARE PROTLY FINAL ORDERS OR APPEALABLE AS NONFINAL ORDERS?

OUR POSI TION IS THAT ADJUDICATION OF DEPENDENCY ORDER , ADJU DICATION AND DISPOSITION ORDER OF DEPENDENCY IS A APPEAL ABLE FINAL ORDER BECAUSE IT DISPOSES JUDICIAL LA BOR ON THAT PETITION.

JUSTICE: DOE SN'T THE JUDICIAL LANE HAVE TO -- JUDICIAL LABOR HAVE TOCONTINUE, AS FAR AS THE PARENTAL RIGHTS?

WELL , IN THE GLS DECISION , YOUR HONOR, THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT DEPENDENCY CASES ARE EXTREMELY UNIQUE AND DON'T REALLY FIT NE ATLY WITHIN THE RULES LIKE OTHER CASES THAT TYPICALLY RESULT IN ONE ORDER. YES , JUDICIAL LABOR CONTINUES, BUT, YOUR HONOR , I WOULD SU BMIT EVEN AFTER TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, JUDI CIAL LABOR CONTINUES UNTIL THAT CHILDIS ADOPTED, AND WHEN WE HAVE 3,000 CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT ADOPTED AFTER TERMINATION , JUDICIAL LABOR CONT INUES FORYEARS , SO, A GAIN , DEPENDENCY AND TERM INATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS CASES ARE VERY UNIQUE AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM 'SPOSITION IS THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO CONSIDER THE UNIQUENESS OF THESE CASES WHEN CONSIDERING HOW THE R ULES APPLY TO THE M.

JUSTICE: WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE, AS FAR AS THE CERTIORARI PETITIONS ARE , HAVE ANY OF THEM BEEN GRANTED?

YOUR HONOR , I BELIEVE WE HAVE SEEN 15 SHELTER ORDERS S INCE OCTOBER APPEALED , WHETHER THROUGH A NOTI CE OF APPEAL OR CERTIORARI , AND I DON'T KNOW THE OUTCOME . IKNOW THAT WE HAVE SI DE D WITH PARENTS, BECAUSE THE COURTS EITHER DID NOT APPOINT AN ATTORNEY FOR THE PARENTS AT THE SHELTER HE ARING OR DID NOT ALLOW THE PARENTS TO TESTIFY OR CROSS-EXAMINATION WIT NESSES. I WOULD SAY THAT THE FI FTH DISTRICT DECIDED ADD CASE ON FRIDAY , JU NE 2 , IN A SHELTER , CONCERNING A SHELTER ORDER , AND IF YOU PULL UP THE FIFTH DISTRICT WEB SITE, YOU YOUWILL SEE THAT THAT WAS INITIATED THRO UGH THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL. IT WAS F ULLY BRIEFED WITHIN 20 DAYS , FULLY BRIEFED BY ALL PART IES WITHIN 20 DAYS BY THE END OF MARCH , AND IT STILL TO OK UNTIL JUNE , AND THE COURT EXPEDITED IT , DIDEVERYTHING IT COULD TO EXPEDITE IT .

JUSTICE: I GU ESS MY QUESTION IS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT APPEALS , BU T MY QUESTION IS IF YOU YOU THINK THAT CERTIORARI IS ADEQUATE TO ADDRES S THIS ISSUE , HOW MANY CERTIORARI PETITIONSARE ACTUALLY GR ANTED , IF ANY , THOSE THAT ARE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED AS CERTIORARI PETITIONS?

YOUR HONOR , THE R ONY CANNOT DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION -- THE REASON I CANNOT DIRECTLY AN SWER YOUR QUESTION IS I HAVE NOT SEEN A PARENTS' ATTORNEY FILE A CERTIORARI PETITION ON THIS. THEY FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL. I BELIEVE --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT YOU YOU ARE SAY ING AS A PRACTICAL MATT ER, THE RULE IS GOING, IF WE ADOPT THE RULE, I T WILL CON FORM WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IN A LL OF THE DISTRICT COURTS , OTHER THAN IN THE SE COND . THAT AS A PR ACTICAL MATTER , THEY ARE TREATING THESE AS NONFINAL ORDERS .

I BELIEVE WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THE COURT IS REVIEWING WHAT IS BEING FILED AND THEN IT IS SAYING , O KAY , THIS DOCUMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OR 20 DAYS OR WHATEVER, G IVE IT TO US, ANDTHE COURTS ARE TR YING TO EXP EDITE THESE CASES AS BEST THEY CAN.

JUSTICE: HA S ANY APPELLATE COURT HELD THAT A DEPENDENCY ORDER WOULD FALL WITHIN THE CU RRENT A -3- C-3 ? BECAUSE IT IS A CHILD CUSTODY AND FAMILY LAW , ANDTHIS IS WITHIN THE REALM OF FAMILY LAW?

YOUR HONOR , TO MY KNOWLEDGE , ALL DEPENDENCY ADJUDICATIONS ARE BEING TREATED AS APPEALS FR OM FINAL ORDERS , UNDER 9.200.

JUSTICE: WHAT I MEAN , THESE NONFINAL CASES THAT YOU YOU ARE GE TTING THAT YOU ARE SAYING ARE FILE D AS APPEALS AND NOT FILED AS CERTIORARI. HAS ANY APPELLATE COURT SAID, WELL, WE ARE GOING , WE CONSIDER THESE AS FILED UNDER A -3 -C-3 , EVEN AS WRITTEN NOW?

NO , YOUR HONOR. I , IN THE FIFTH DIST RICT AND PREVIOUSLY IN THE SECOND DISTRICT, THE COURTS WERE INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER 9.14-D, W HICH IS WH Y YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THERE . I HAVE SEEN SOME COURTS SAYTHAT THERE IS A RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL, NOT SHELTER BUT IN ANY THING AFTER ADJUDICATION OF DEPENDENCY , UNDER 9.130- A -4 , WHICH TALKS ABOUT APPEALS OF NONFINAL ORDERS FOLL OWING A FINAL ORDER. SOMETIMES THE COURTS JUST ALLOW IT, BUT THERE ARE , AND WE C ITE IT IN OUR COMMENTS , THE THREE DECISIONS FROM THE FOURTH, FIFTH AND, I BELIEVE FIRST DISTRICTS THAT HAVE EXP RESSLY CITED 9.130-A-4.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOUR TIME IS EXPI RE D . I WANT TO ASK, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. IS THE PR ESENT PRACTICE THAT, IN ALL OF THESE CASES THAT GO UP , WH ETHER IT IS BY PETITION OR APPEAL , THAT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PRO GRAM IS ENTERING AN APPEARANCE TO REPRESENT THE INTE RESTS OF THE CHILD?

YOUR HONOR, WE TRIED TO DO THAT. IF WE ARE SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE APPEAL , MOST OF THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE AUTOMATICALLY FORWARDING THINGS TO US. BECAUSE THE GUAR DIAN PROGRAMDID NOT HAVE A STAT EWIDE APPELLATE PRAC TICE UNTIL RECENTLY, WE ARE STILL FREQUENTLY OMITTED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IT MEANS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, BECAUSE THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM AT L EAST FOR HA LF THECASE, IS NOT APPO INTED FOR THE CHILD, THAT WHATEVER RIGHT THERE IS , WHETHER IT IS NONFINAL OR PETITION , WHEN THAT CHILD IS TAKEN A WAY FROM THE PARENTS , THE CHILD IS NEVER A BLE T O APPEAL OR PETITION AN APPELLATE COURT I N THOSE CASES WHERE THERE IS NO GUARDIAN AD LITEM .

THAT'S CORRECT , YOURHONOR.I BELIEVE WE ARE ON ABOUT 62 PERCENT OF THE CASES NOW , AND WITH THE NEW FUNDINGFROM THE LEGISLATURE THIS YEAR, I BELIEVE WE ARE H OPING TO INCREASE 6,000 TO 7,000 MORE CHILDREN.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MU CH.

THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT YOU IN AN AWKWARD POSI TION. IT SEEMED LI KE YOU HAVE SO M UCH KNOW LEDGE.

NO. NO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS CONCERNING ME IS THAT, IF ALL OF THE APPELLATE COURTS ARE TREATING THESE CASES A S NONFINAL ORDERS ANYWAY , THEN , WHAT , AREN'T WE JUST GOING AND CONFORMING THE RU LES TO THE PRACTICE?

I THINK YOU SAID THE BEST , B Y THE WA Y I AM ALAN ABRAMOWITZ, CHAIR OF THE JUVENILE RULES COMMITTEE. I THINK YOU MADE THE BEST ARGUMENT THERE WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT A CASE THAT WAS FIVE YEARS IN THE MAKING. NORMAL APPEAL PROCESS, AND NOW WE ARE IN A HORRIBLE SITUATION IN THAT C ASE , I AM ASSUMING, AND IN YOUR , WHENYOU YOU RULE D ON THE WRIT , YOU , I THINK IT WAS A CONCURRING OPINION THAT ASKED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CIRCUIT JUDGE TO STILL MAKE THE DECISIONS THEY N E ED TO MAKE, AND I THINK WHAT WE FORGET, AND JACKIE HEARD HIM QUOTED , JA CK LEVIN, I HEARD HIM QU OTED AS SAYING THAT CHI LDREN NOT FROZEN IN I CE. BY THE TI ME YOU GO THROUGHTHE TIME FRAME AND APPEALS PROCESS , THE CIRCUM STANCES HAVE L ON G CHANGED. THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE. JUD GES ARE RULI NG IN THE UPPER COURT ON THINGS THAT ARE NOT EVEN HAPPENING ON THE GROUND. THAT IS THE AMAZING THING. THE WRIT S ARE V ERY IMPORTANT.I WOULD LIKE TO P OINT OUT O NE THING FROM A CASE IN THE FIFTH DISTRI CT COURT OF APPEAL WHERE A CHILD NEEDED A C YST RE MOVED FROM THEIR THROAT. I THINK IT WAS D CF , BUT THECHILD IS A BOUT TO T URN 18, AND IF THEY HAD DONE A REGULAR NONFINAL ORDER , HE WOULD HAVE TURNED 18 AND THAT CHILD WOULD HAVE B EEN LONG GO NE. HIS ME DICAID WOULD HAVE EXPIRED AND THE JUDGE REFUSED TO HEAR THE CASE ACTUALLY AND THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE SURGERY , JU MPING IN ON AWRIT, AND UNIQUE ACCESS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THERE STILL WOULD BE THE PETITION , THIS ISN'T ELIMINATING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT , AND IN A MEDICAL PROCEDURE, THAT IS NOT INCL UDED AS A NONFINAL ORDER.IT IS ONLY DETERMINATIONS OF CUSTODY, SO LET'S GO B ACK TO THE FACT THAT ON THE GR OUND IS IT TRUE THAT EVERY COURT , OTHER THAN THE , OR EVERY DISTRICT OTHER THAN THE SECOND DISTRICT IS TREA TING THESE , ANYWAY , AS NONFINAL APPEALS?

WH ICH TYPE, THE RE GULAR , THE DEPENDENCY ?

CHIEF JUSTICE: FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN DEPENDENCY AND TERM INATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS.

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE TREATING THEM AS FINAL ORDER S OF DEPENDENCY . IT SEEMS LIKE THE COURT, IF IT IS AN EMERGENCY AND YOU FILE SOMETHING, THEY WILL HEAR IT. IT IS C LEAR IF YOU FILE AWRIT THAT THEY WILL HEAR IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT I I NOT MR . -- -BUT I THOUGHT MR WAS SAYING THAT THE PARENTS WERE FILING IT AS AN APPEAL FROM A NONFINAL ORDER AND THAT IS HOW THE APPELLATE COURTS WERE TREATING THAT.

IF YOU , I THINK THEY HAVE. IT DEPEND S ON WHAT THE ATTORNEY FILED. I MEAN, BA SICALLY WHAT MY EXPERIENCE IS , THAT TO A CERTAIN DE GREE , DICTATES. IN FACT, I F YOU FILE THE WRONG THING THEY WILL FIX IT. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SEEN , AT LEAST IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IF YOU PLEAD THE WRONG THING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD BE AT LE AS T AT GOOD I DE A TO EXP RESSLY ALLOW SHELTER ORDERS , WHICH WOULDBE THE C RITICAL IN ITIAL ORDER , TO BE APPEAL ABLE AS A NONFINAL ORDER, AT LEAST TO HAVE ONE CATEGORY THAT IS FOR THE DEPENDENCY ?

WELL , I KNOW THAT I N DELINQUENCY IN CHAPTER 985, THEY ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WITH REGARD TO SHELTER ORDER OF CHILDREN, BECAUSE A LOT OF CHILDREN BY THE TIME YOU DO THE NONFINAL , I MEAN AND NOTDO A WRIT, THEN IT IS LONG GONE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED , SO THE COMMITTEE DID NOT ADDR ESS THAT SPECIFICALLY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: UNLESS YOU COULD REALLY G ET A DETERMINATION ON THAT SHELTER ORDER , FOR THE SAME REASON, THAT IS W H Y WE ARETALKING ABOUT EXCEPTION S WIT HIN TEN OR 20 DAYS AFTER THE DETERMINATION IS MADE , WE ARE AL MOST , WE ARE ON DEPENDENCY. IS THAT WHAT YOU YOU ARE SAYSOMETHING.

YES. YOU HAVE HAD OTHER HEARINGS IN THE IN TERIM AND MORE INFORMATION MAY HAVE COME OUT. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO CRITICAL, THE SP EE D THINGS OCCUR BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE YOUR HEARINGS, ESPECIALLY U P FRONT FROM THE SHELTER CASE, YOU ARE HAVING H EARINGS MORE OF TEN AND AS YOU MOVE PA ST THE 90th DAY OR 88th DAY AND THEN YOU ARE GOING TO THE 5-MO NTH REVIEWS UNLESS YOU CAN HAVE A GENERAL MAGISTRATE EARLIER HEAR THE CASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT I REMEMBER THIS FROM SEVERALYEARS AGO , DEPENDANCY ORDERS ARE TREATED AS FINAL ORDERS IN ALL OF THE APPELLATE COURTS, AREN'T THEY?

DEPENDENCY, YES. IN PRACTICE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IN PRACTICE BUT IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LI STED AS A FINAL ORDER BUT IT IS TREATED AS FINAL ORDER , AN ORDER OF DEPENDENCY?

I AM NOT SU RE. I WOULD DE FER TO THE APPEAL EXPERT.

JUSTICE: THIS COURT DECIDED A CASE THAT REALLY RULED, BY THE WAY , A CASE WHERE ODD CIRCUMSTANCES CUTTING OF F THE RIGHTS TO APPEAL WAS ONE OF THE SUBISSUES OF THE CASE. ISN'T THAT WHERE THAT CAME UP?

I JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CHILDREN ARE CHANGING AND IF YOU HAVE A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL MAKING DECISIONS , WHILE MORE HEARINGS HAVE GONE THAT CHANGED CIRCUMST ANCES TRBS IS PROBLEMATIC.

CHIEF JUSTICE: MR . REITER. THA NK YOU FOR RESPONDING. MR . REITER , WE WILL ASK THOSE QUE STIONS.

JUSTICE: MR . R EITER, ARE THERE MEMBERS OF THE COURTS OF APPEAL ON YOUR COMMITTEE?

YE S, THERE ARE. IN FACT I AM GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT , BECAUSE JUDGE HOLSTON, WH O I BELIEVE IS A FIRST OR SE COND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE , AT ONE OF OT HER MEETINGS IN DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE , ONE OF HIS COMMENTS, AND I RE MEMBER , A GAIN , IN REVIEWING THE MINUTES, HE THOUGHT IT WAS I RONIC THAT WE ALLOW IMMEDIATE APPEAL OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY BUT THAT THEY WOULD WE WOULD NOT ALLOW IMMEDIATE APPEAL OF POSSESSION OR CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WILL ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS THAT, THIS HAPPENS IN DIVORCE CASES , THAT WE ARE SE TTING THERE AND SOME BODY I S DECIDING SOMETHING THAT HAS NOW HAS BEEN 20 OTHER HEARINGS ON IT , AND I T IS NEVER THE SAME CIRCUM STANCES , BUT YOU ARE FI XED IN TIME. IN CHILDREN FOR THESE CUSTODY CASES, I MEAN IN DEPENDENCY ISSUE , YOU HAVETHE RIGHT TO APPEAL A FINAL ORDER THE TERMINATION OF CUSTODY, I MEAN OF DEPENDENCY, THE PRICEABLE EFFECT IS THERE IS NO WA Y, NO MATTER HOW HA RD THEDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL TRIES , THAT THEY CAN GET THESE CASES RESOLVED IN LESS THAN 6 0 DAYS. I MEAN, WHAT, DID YOU LOOK AT THAT?WHAT THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT , AS, AND MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT NO BODY, INCLUDING DCF, INCL UDING THE PARENTS' ATTORNEY, EVER EVEN SAYS WEHAVE GOT T O EXPE DITE THIS AND DECIDE THIS TOMORROW!

YOUR HONOR , LET ME RESPOND TO THAT IN MULTIPLE WAYS. FIRST OF ALL , IN MY O WN PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE , AGAIN, THIS IS NOT IN A DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS BUT IN PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE ON A NONFINAL ORDER, AGAIN RELATING TO PROPERTY, I HAVE SEEN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL ISSUE AN OPINION LITERALLY WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM INITIAL B RIEF ING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS YOUR EXPERI ENCE , WHAT IS THE STATISTICS, WHAT IS THE NUMBERS?

I DON'T HAVE THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DON'T YOU THINK THAT IS A C RITICAL THING FOR US TO UNDERSTAND? I ME AN, WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL , PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT OUR REQUEST , LO OKING IT AT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE DE LA Y IN THE APPELLATE PROCESS WHEN IT COMES T O DEPENDENCY . SHOULDN'T WE AT LEAST HAVE THEM WEIGH IN ON WHAT IS GOING ON ON THE GROUND , BEFORE WE MAKE WHAT IS , TO ME A RADICAL CHANGE IN THERULE?

I THINK THOSE STATISTICS W OULD BE VERY HELPFUL , YOURHONOR , I ABSOLUTELY DO , BUT I ALSO DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, WHEN THESE ISSUES ARE BEING REVIEWED , AND THIS GOES BACK TO ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP , WHEN THESE ISSUES ARE BEING REVIEWED, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE INTERIM DECISIONSTHAT ARE MADE BY THE TR IAL JUDGE ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO CHANGE DRAMATICALLY THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF WHAT IS BEING REVI EWED, IF NO EXAMPLE THE ISSUE THAT IS ON APPEAL IS THE IMMEDIATE CUSTODY OR PLACEMENT OF A CHILD PE NDING DISPOSITION OF AN ULT IMATE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS DECISION, W HICH COULD T AK E MONT HS OR A YEAR. THERE MAY BE ORDER S ENTERED ALONG THE WAY THAT GO T O THE PROTECTION OF THE CHILD BY THE TRIAL COURT , WHICH HAS THE JURISDICTION TO DO THAT.

JUSTICE: COULD YOU MAKE A COMMENT ON THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM ATTORNEY 'S COMMENT THAT PERHAPS THE ROOTS TO THE APPELLATE RULE WITH REFERENCE TO DO MESTIC CASES , HAVE TO DO WITH POST DISSOLUTION CHANGES OF CUSTODY.CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT THAT AT ALL?

YOUR HONOR , AGA IN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY EVALUATED BY THE COMMITTEE.I DO NOT BELIEVE , THOUGH , S INCE IT WASN'T EVALUATED BY THE COMMITTEE, IT IS HARD FOR MY TO ARTICULATE A RESPONSE SPECIFICALLY TO THAT QUESTION , YOUR HONOR , BECAUSE , AGAIN , I DON'T KNOW. THE COMMITTEE DID NOT COMPARE --

JUSTICE: WE ARE ALL TALKING ANECDOTALLY , AND ONE O F THE THIN G THAT IS COME S UP ON M Y REVIEW SC REEN WITH APPELLATE LAW WEEKLY IS YOUDON'T SEE CASES IN THERE ON APPELLATE REVIEW OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY, NO W THAT THE COURT IS REVIEWING THO SE. THAT IS AM ONGST THE DCA AND , OF COURSE , IT MAY BE THAT THEY NO RTH WRITING OPINIONS OR WHAT EVER -- THAT THEY ARE NOT WRITING OPINIONS OR WHATEVER THE MATTER S IS , BUT ALL OF YOU HAVE REALLY SORT OF ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS REALLY A FALSITY OF FACTS FOR US TO T E LL WHAT IS GOING ON WE AT THE APPELLATE LE VEL -- ON AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL, OTHER THAN THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS ARE DO ING A GOOD JOB WHEN THIS ISSUE IS RAISED OF JUMPING ON IT AND TURNING IT AROUND IN A HURRYWHEN IT HAS TO DO WITH THECHILDREN, BECAUSE VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM HAVE RESPONDEDTO OUR U R GING AND THE RULES THAT WE HAVE ABOUT TREATING CHILDREN S ISSUES WITH PRIORITY.

YOUR HONOR, I THINK ONE THING TO RE MEMBER IS LOOKING AT IT FROM A PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE, JUSTICE PARIENTE POINTED OUT AFTER HEARINGWHAT THE GUARDIAN HAS TO SAYABOUT THIS ISSUE, IF COURTS AND ATTORNEYS AND PERSONS ARE PRACTICALLY UTILIZING THE APPEAL METHOD IN ORDER TO SEEK REVIEW OF THESE SORTS OF ORDERS , THEN ANYTHING ALLOWING THIS AMENDMENT WOUL D, THEN , BY GUIDANCE AND PRACABILITY WOULD CON FORM TO THE PRACTICE AS IT IS UTILIZED , AND IT REALLY GOES BACK TO WHAT JUSTICE QU INCE SAID BEFORE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT DISRUPT AGO F A MILY UNIT , WHETHER IT BE IN A F AMILY SE TTING , WHIC H IN M OST CASES THERE WAS SH ARED PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY D URING THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS AND IN A DEPENDENCY CASE WHERE THE FAMILY HAS COMPLETELY BEEN TORN AP ART BY A NONFINAL ORDER , PENDING DISPOSITIONOF THE FINAL ISSUE. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER, UNLESS AN YONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOUVERY MUCH. THE COURT WILL TAKE THIS M ATTER INTO CONSIDERATION AND APPRECIATES THE RESPONSIVENESS TO OURQUESTIONS AND WE WILL TAKE OUR MORNING RECESS OF 15 MINUTES.

MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.