Mary C. Schmigel v. Carson Wade Schmigel; Mary C. Schmigel v. Carson Wade Schmigel O/B/O H.S.

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed two final domestic-violence injunctions entered in favor of Carson Wade Schmigel and Carson Schmigel on behalf of H.S. The court held that allowing the parties’ sixteen-year-old child to attend and testify at the noticed injunction hearing without a prior order under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.407(a) did not violate the respondent parent’s due process rights.

Holdings

1. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.407(a), which protects minor children from unnecessary involvement in family-law proceedings, does not expand the procedural due process rights of a respondent parent defending against a domestic-violence-injunction petition. Because Schmigel received notice and a reasonable opportunity to challenge the allegations, allowing H.S. to attend and testify without a prior court order did not violate due process.
2. The appeals were not moot because collateral consequences can flow from expired domestic-violence injunctions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether allowing the minor child H.S. to attend and testify at the final domestic-violence-injunction hearings without a prior court order under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.407(a) violated Schmigel's procedural due process rights.
2. Whether the expiration of the domestic-violence injunctions rendered the appeals moot.

Disposition

affirmed