Mark Francis (Husband) filed this divorce action against Kazuko Francis (Wife). The trial court ordered, over Husband’s objection, both parties and their minor child to undergo psychological evaluatiоns by Dr. Jacqueline Hill. Dr. Hill testified at a bench trial, and the trial court entered a final divorce decree awarding physical custody of the child tо Wife. Husband applied pro se for a discretionary appeal, which we granted pursuаnt to our Pilot Project in divorce cases.
Husbаnd contends that the trial court erred in appointing Dr. Hill to perform a custody evaluation. In making that assertion on appeal, he is limited to those objections which he timely raised below. “This state has long followed the contempоraneous objection rule, which provides thаt counsel must make a proper objeсtion on the record at the earliest pоssible time to preserve for review the point of error. [Cit.]”
State v. Larocque,
Prior to Dr. Hill’s appointment, counsel for Husband objected only on the basis that his client did not desire to incur the expense and did not need a psycholоgical evaluation. Not until trial, almost one and a half years later, did Husband’s new attorney object on the basis that, on a single occasion prior to the appointment of Dr. Hill, Wife had сonsulted with and paid her for psychologicаl advice or evaluation. In making that obj eсtion below, Husband did not contend that he did not havе knowledge of these facts at the time of the appointment. See
Pope v. State,
On appеal, Husband’s sole contention is that Dr. Hill should not have been appointed because of hеr prior consultation with Wife. However, the trial court correctly held that Husband waived that ground of objection to Dr. Hill’s appointment, by failing to raise it until trial.
Judgment affirmed.