March 29, 2004
 
 
March 29, 2004
UCN: 521990GA002908XXGDXX Ref No.90-2908-GD-003
    This Matter came before the Court at a hearing on March 26, 2004 on the Respondents' Motion for an Order to Show Cause why MICHAEL SCHIAVO as Guardian of the Person of Theresa Marie Schiavo  should not be held indirect criminal contempt for violation of the Order Requring Service of Copy of Annual Reports of Person on Parents of the Ward, entered June 18, 1996, by the Hon. Thomas E. Penick, Jr. Paragraph 3 of that Order provides as follows:

 

        "MICHAEL SCHIAVO, as Guardian of the Person of Theresa SCHIAVO, shall notify in writing any nursing home, which now or in the future provides care or medical services for THERESA SCHIAVO that he has no objections to the nursing home discussing THERESA SCHIAVO's medical condition with ROBERT SCHINDLER  or MARY SCHINDLER.  MICHAEL SCHIAVO shall promptly provide ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY SCHINDLER a copy of any neurological reports regarding THERESA SCHIAVO.  In addition, MICHAEL SCHIAVO agrees to inform ROBERT SCHINDLER and MARY SCHINDLER as to any significant changes in THERESA SCHIAVO's medical condition."

 

The Motion was apparently triggered by incidents occurring in February 2004.

 

   Fla.R.Crim.P.3.840(a) provides that a judge, based on the affiddavit of a person "having knowledge of the facts", may issue an Order to Show Cause.   While Mrs. Schindler's reason for not disclosing the souces of her information is understandable,  the Rule nevertheless requires personal knowledge. See Hagan v. State, 853 So.2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).  On the face, the affidavits submitted in support of the Motion for an Order to Show Cause do not demonstrate personal knowledge by the movant, MARY SCHINDLER  or by HEIDI LAW, the other affiant, of noncompliance with the 1996 Order.  While Mary Schindler does in the second sentence of paragraph 7 of her March 23, 2004 affidavit speak with personal knowledge, that knowledge is predicated upon the hearsay statement of the preceeding sentence.  Therefore it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for an Order to Show Cause is denied without prejudice for Respondents to file anew in accordance with the above-cited Rule.