SHOULD YOU WISH TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE ORDER UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT HEARING OFFICER, YOU MUST FILE A MOTION TO VACATE WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULE OF PROCEDURE 12.491(f). YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH A RECORD SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION OR YOUR MOTION WILL BE DENIED. A RECORD ORDINARILY INCLUDES A WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF ALL RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS. THE PERSON SEEKING REVIEW MUST HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT PREPARED FOR THE COURT'S REVIEW.
Fl. Fam. Law. R. P. 12.491
Commentary
1995 Adoption. Previously, this rule was contained in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.491. The new rule is substantially the same as previous rule 1.491, with the following additions.
It is intended that any administrative order issued by the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court under rule 1.491(a) shall remain in full force and effect as though such order was rendered under this rule until changed by order of that same court.
Subdivision (e) now makes clear that contested paternity cases are not to be heard by support enforcement hearing officers.
Subdivision (h) has been added to provide requirements for a record.
1988 Adoption. Title: The terminology "hearing officer" is used rather than "master" to avoid confusion or conflict with rule 1.490.
Subdivision (a): The rule is intended as a fall back mechanism to be used by the chief justice as the need may arise.
Subdivision (b): The expedited process provisions of the applicable federal regulations apply only to matters which fall within the purview of Title IV-D. The committee recognizes, however, that the use of hearing officers could provide a useful case flow management tool in non-Title IV-D support proceedings.
It is contemplated that a circuit could make application to the chief justice for expansion of the scope of the rule upon a showing of necessity and good cause. It is the position of the representative of the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar that reference of non-Title IV-D proceedings should require the consent of the parties as is required by rule 1.490(c).
Subdivision (c): It is the position of the committee that hearing officers should be members of the Bar in that jurisdictional and other legal issues are likely to arise in proceedings of this nature. The waiver provision is directed to small counties in which it may be difficult or impossible to find a lawyer willing to serve and to such other special circumstances as may be determined by the chief justice.
Subdivision (d): This paragraph recognizes that the mechanics of reference and operation of a program are best determined at the local level.
Subdivision (e): This paragraph is intended to empower the hearing officer to fully carry out his or her responsibilities without becoming overly complicated. The authority to enter defaults which is referred to in the federal regulations is omitted, the committee feeling that the subject matter is fully and adequately covered by rule 1.500.
The authority to accept voluntary acknowledgments of paternity is included at the request of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Findings of fact are included in the recommended order to provide the judge to whom the order is referred basic information relating to the subject matter.
Subdivision (f): Expedited process is intended to eliminate or minimize delays which are perceived to exist in the normal processing of cases. This paragraph is intended to require the prompt entry of an order and to guarantee due process to the obligee.
General Note: This proposed rule, in substantially the same form, was circulated to each of the chief judges for comment. Five responses were received. Two responding endorsed the procedure, and 3 responding felt that any rule of this kind would be inappropriate. The committee did not address the question of funding, which included not only salaries of hearing officers and support personnel, but also capital outlay for furniture, fixtures, equipment and space, and normal operating costs. The committee recognizes that the operational costs of such programs may be substantial and recommends that this matter be addressed by an appropriate body.
Committee Note
1998 Amendment. This rule shall not apply to proceedings to establish or modify alimony.