Monteiro v. Monteiro, 55 So. 3d 686

Hamilton Monteiro petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash a March 21, 2010 trial court order.
The order required in-camera interviews of the minor children outside the presence of the parties and counsel at a final domestic violence injunction hearing.
Four domestic violence petitions were consolidated with the dissolution of marriage action: one by the wife and three by the children stemming from alleged abuse.
The husband was arrested on September 17, 2009, for alleged sexual abuse of the three minor girls.
The trial court stated it would interview at least the two oldest children privately, with potential interviews of the youngest, and outside counsel and party presence.
The issue presented concerns due process and whether the trial court's procedure complied with the law; the appellate court denies certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether common law certiorari is proper here	Monteiro argues certiorari is proper due to due process concerns.	Respondent contends ordinary interlocutory remedies apply; certiorari is exceptional and not warranted.	Certiorari denied; rare to resort to it.
Whether the in-camera child interviews violated essential requirements of law	Monteiro asserts presence of counsel/parties is required for valid proceedings.	Trial court acted within law; children may be interviewed outside presence under rules and statutes.	No departure from essential requirements; court acted within law.
Application of Rule 12.407 and child-protection authorities in DV cases	Rule 12.407 requires procedures to protect child witnesses; presence of counsel/court reporter is necessary.	Rule 12.407 supports in-camera interviews to protect child best interests; court reporter can be present on remand.	Rule supported; best interests of children paramount; remand may allow court reporter presence.

Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (common law certiorari for extraordinary remedies; burden on movant)
Shook v. Alter, 715 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (departure from essential requirements must be shown)
Hickey v. Burlinson, 33 So.3d 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (presence of court reporter in in-camera interview preserves due process)
Nowak v. Nowak, 546 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (children's interests in domestic relations priority in best interests analysis)
Castellanos v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 545 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (in-camera child examination in juvenile contexts supported by statute; rationale cited)
State v. Tarrago, 800 So.2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (trial court discretion to protect child witnesses)