Prakash v. PrakashPrakash v. Prakash
{¶ 1} Plаintiff-appellant, Ruby Prakash (“appellant”), appeals the decision and judgment entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, which ordered appellant to undergo a psychological examination. Because the judgment from which appellant appeals is not a final, appeal-able order, we grant the request of defendant-appellee, Sanjeev Prakash (“appellee”), to dismiss this appeal.
{¶ 2} Appellant and appellee were divorced in 1998. They share parenting responsibilitiеs for their minor child. Since 2006, both parties have filed numerous parenting-related motions. The trial court has held at least eight hearings and issued several orders.
{¶ 3} On September 28, 2008, the trial court issued a decision and judgment entry, which overruled objections to a magistrate’s order requiring appellant, appellee, and their child to each undergo a psychological examination. The court’s decision specifically referred to appellant’s motion for reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities and the guardian ad litem’s motion for the psychological evaluations.
{¶ 4} Appellant appeals the trial court’s September 28, 2008 order, and she raises the following assignment of error:
It is error for the trial court to grant a motion for psychological evaluation of the parties and minor child in an action to enforce parental rights without an evidentiary hearing to establish the need, scoрe and cost of the evaluation pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 35(A).
{¶ 5} Before reaching appellant’s assignment of error, we must first address appellee’s motion to dismiss. In that motion, appellee argues that the court’s September 28, 2008 judgment was not a final, appealable order. We agree.
{¶ 6} Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution limits an appellate court’s jurisdiction to the rеview of lower courts’ final orders. Thus, it is well
{¶ 7} The Supreme Court of Ohio has set forth a two-step analysis for determining whether an order is final and appealable. See
Gen. Acc. Ins. Co.,
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} We focus on
{¶ 10} Having determined that the trial court issued its order in a special proceeding, we сonsider whether the order affects a substantial right.
{¶ 11} Here, the trial court ordered the psychological evaluation pursuant to
{¶ 12} Appellee asserts that this court has previously held that “a
{¶ 13} We note, however, that the Supreme Court of Ohio has addressed this issue more recently, and its holding is contrary to the рrior holdings of this court. In
Myers v. Toledo,
{¶ 14} In reaching this conclusiоn, the court considered whether an order requiring a medical examination, pursuant to
A party to a cause of action in which the physical condition of the party is in controvеrsy does not have a substantial right to prevent a court from ordering a physical examination. Therefore, a court order requiring a party to submitto an independent medical examination, for good cause shown, does not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) .
{¶ 15} Appellant asks us to distinguish
Myers
from the case before us. Appellant acknowledges that the
Myers
court certified the question whether an order granting a motion for a “physical or mental examination” was final and appealable under
{¶ 16} First, the court’s reference in
Myers
to a “medical examinatiоn” is broad enough to include a psychological examination. Second, the court accepted the
Myers
appeal based on a conflict among appellate courts, including
Harness v. Harness
(2001),
{¶ 17} Appellant asserts that, under certain circumstances, a psychological examination is more intrusive than a physical examination. She argues that that is particularly true here, where the court’s order arose from a contempt proceeding, as opposed to an order that might arise, for example, in аn action where a disagreement about the existence of a physical injury lies at the very heart of the case. While we acknowledge the intrusion a party may perceivе as a result of an involuntary psychological evaluation, we do not agree that such an evaluation affects rights more substantial than those affected by the physical examinаtion at issue in Myers.
{¶ 18} Here, contrary to appellant’s assertions, the mental health of the parties and their daughter is important to the issues before the trial court. The trial court had befоre it a motion to reallocate parental rights and responsibilities.
{¶ 19} The court also found that the “plethora of pleadings, supporting memoranda and sworn affidavit(s)” filed by the parties, including appellee’s motion for a contempt order against appellant and appellant’s response to that motion, contained allеgations of parental alienation and sexual abuse. Such allegations place the mental health of the parties and their daughter squarely at
{¶ 20} For all these reasons, and based on
Myers,
we conclude that the trial court’s order requiring the parties and their minor child to submit to а psychological examination, pursuant to
{¶ 21} Having determined that the order from which appellant appeals is not a final, appealable order under
Appeal dismissed.