PEARSON v. PEARSON (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.2021-12-01No. No. 3D21-1786

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition was granted in part, quashing the order requiring psychological evaluations because the record did not establish that either parent's mental condition was in controversy or that good cause existed for the examinations, but the court denied the petition as to the Guardian ad Litem appointment.

The former husband sought to overturn two provisions of a trial court's order: one appointing a Guardian ad Litem for the minor child and another ordering psychological evaluations of both parents. The appellate court addressed whether the trial court had authority to compel the psychological examinations without establishing the required legal foundation. Under Florida procedural rules, mental examinations are permitted only when the party's mental condition is genuinely at issue in the case and the requesting party demonstrates good cause for the evaluation.

The court found that the record lacked evidence supporting either requirement. No pleading alleged that either parent's mental state was disputed, and the trial court's own referral form did not indicate that a mental health condition was in controversy. Because the court could not determine from the record whether the trial judge had established good cause or shown the condition was disputed, the order requiring the evaluations could not stand. However, the court did not foreclose future psychological examinations if the proper legal prerequisites were satisfied.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standard for compelling psychological evaluations in family law proceedings
Requirement to establish mental condition is 'in controversy' before ordering mental examination
Requirement to demonstrate 'good cause' for mental examination orders
Whether trial court's failure to document basis for examination order constitutes reversible error

Procedural posture

The former husband petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review and quash portions of a trial court order concerning child custody and evaluations.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Kristopher E. Pearson (“Former Husband” or “Petitioner”) petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari, seeking to quash Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the trial courts Order on Former Husbands Emergency Motion for Return of Minor Child and Turnover of Passport (“Order”), which, in part, appointed a Guardian ad Litem for the parties’ minor child to advance the childs best interest (Paragraph 5) and ordered psychological evaluations of both parties (Paragraph 6). We grant the petition, in part, quashing Paragraph 6 of the Order, but without further discussion deny the portion of the petition seeking to quash Paragraph 5 of the Order. See § 61.401, Fla. Stat. (2021).

“Certiorari jurisdiction lies to review an order compelling a mental examination.” Manubens v. Manubens, 198 So. 3d 1072, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (quoting J.B. v. M.M., 92 So. 3d 888, 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 12.360(a)(1) provides that “[a] party may request any other party to submit to ․ examination by a qualified expert when the condition that is the subject of the requested examination is in controversy.” Further, rule 12.360(a)(2) provides: “An examination under this rule is authorized only when the party submitting the request has good cause for the examination. At any hearing the party submitting the request shall have the burden of showing good cause.” See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360(a)(1) & (a)(2); Gasparino v. Murphy, 352 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Thus, the order requiring the parties to submit to psychological examinations is a departure from the essential requirements of law unless both the “in controversy” and the “good cause” prongs were established. See Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369, 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Here, the record before this Court does not contain any pleadings specifically alleging that the parties’ mental condition was in controversy, and there is also no transcript of the hearing at which the trial court ordered the parties to submit to psychological evaluations. In addition, in the trial courts Order of Referral to Family Court Services, although the trial court marked the “Psychological Evaluation” box, the trial court did not mark the “Mental health condition in controversy” box. As such, we grant, in part, the petition for writ of certiorari and quash Paragraph 6 of the Order requiring both parties to submit to psychological evaluations. The quashing of Paragraph 6 from the Order should not be viewed as prohibiting such an examination in the future if the necessary requirements are met.

Petition granted, in part, and order under review quashed, in part.

HENDON, J.