124 So. 3d 369
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Illinois divorce and Florida custody proceedings; Florida registered the Illinois final custody judgment and assumed custody jurisdiction for matters other than finances.
- Father filed Emergency Motion July 22, 2013 seeking suspension or supervision of Mother's timesharing pending a Rule 1.360/12.360 psychological examination.
- Emergency hearing admitted a YouTube video of the Mother's conduct outside the Illinois courthouse and heard from the Illinois-appointed Parenting Coordinator, Rosenberg.
- Trial court sua sponte ordered the Mother to undergo a psychological examination focusing on anger and to participate in the oldest child’s therapy during Florida parenting time.
- Written order (Aug. 12, 2013) denied suspension but found “good cause” existed for the compulsory examination and for the Mother’s participation in therapy, notwithstanding lack of explicit “in controversy” findings.
- Petition for writ of certiorari granted; the court quashed the portions of the order ordering the psych exam and the Mother’s participation in the oldest child’s therapy; the therapy-for-the-child portion not addressed by the petition remained unresolved; the court noted potential evidentiary issues (hearsay) with relied-upon conversations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sua sponte psych exam complied with 1.360’s in-controversy and good-cause requirements | Wade argues the Mother’s mental condition was in controversy and good cause existed | Rothenberg argues the court properly weighed evidence and discretion in custody matters | Quashed; order departed from essential requirements of law |
| Whether the record adequately shows the Mother’s mental condition was in controversy | Wade contends the record established controversy through allegations and evidence of risk | Rothenberg contends no direct, substantiated controversy shown | Quashed; insufficient basis to deem mental condition in controversy |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of good cause to justify the examination | Wade asserts good cause based on perceived risk to children | Rothenberg asserts lack of evidence showing adverse effect on children | Quashed; no good cause demonstrated under rule 1.360 |
| Whether the order complied with the “in controversy” and “good cause” prerequisites under Schlagenhauf and Florida authorities | Wade argues the prerequisites were met by remote evidence | Rothenberg argues the prerequisites were met by court’s discretion | Quashed; prerequisites not satisfied |
| Whether the trial court’s findings were adequate and properly addressed under rule 1.360 | Wade contends the court failed to make explicit findings | Rothenberg contends implicit findings were sufficient | Quashed; lack of explicit, adequate findings to support order |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasparino v. Murphy, 352 So.2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (two prerequisites: in controversy and good cause; privacy considerations)
- Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court 1965) (in controversy and good cause require affirmative showing)
- Williams v. Williams, 550 So.2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (good cause in custody context based on evidence of needs of child)
- Russenberger v. Russenberger, 639 So.2d 963 (Fla.1994) (trial court must address in-controversy and good-cause before order)
- Paul v. Paul, 366 So.2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (test for two prerequisites for compulsory examinations)
- Doe v. Suntrust Bank, 32 So.3d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (requires genuine controversy and good cause for exam)
- In re G.D., 870 So.2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (parental mental state in dependency context not automatic)
- Frisard v. Frisard, 453 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (mental examinations not automatic in custody disputes)
- Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So.2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (privacy invasion principles for compelled examinations)