Oldham v. Greene

Citation: 263 So. 3d 807Docket: No. 1D17-2238

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; December 26, 2018; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Father seeks certiorari review of a court order requiring him to undergo psychological testing in the context of his dissolution of marriage and custody proceedings with Mother, Hillary Greene. He contends that the order violates Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.360 by failing to demonstrate 'in controversy' and 'good cause' and lacking specifications regarding the examination's manner, conditions, and scope. The background involves Father petitioning for dissolution in 2017, followed by Mother filing a counter-petition and family law interrogatories. Notably, Mother did not identify any mental condition of Father in her responses. Subsequently, she filed a motion for a social investigation, alleging uncontrolled explosive rage from Father, claiming it negatively impacted their child. The alleged behaviors occurred prior to her motion and included violent outbursts. Mother's motion aimed to evaluate Father's mental health for creating an appropriate parenting plan. During the motion hearing, Mother's counsel sought both a psychological evaluation and a social investigation. Mother testified about her fears regarding Father's behavior, including instances of throwing objects and aggressive reactions to minor provocations. Despite her claims, she acknowledged that Father had no recent arrests or reports of domestic violence. Father countered that he had no psychological issues and denied any violent behavior, asserting his role as the primary caregiver and his desire for sole custody. The court agreed with Father, granting his petition for review.

The trial court ruled that Mother's motion was a request for a psychological examination under Florida Rule 12.360, not a social investigation under section 61.20, Florida Statutes. On May 4, 2017, the court issued an order for a social investigation but mandated a psychological evaluation under Rule 12.360, requiring Mother to choose a psychologist and cover initial costs. The evaluation aimed to assess whether Father's anger issues impact his parenting, although this was not specified in the order. The court granted Mother temporary majority timesharing and unsupervised overnight timesharing for Father every other weekend, noting that Mother met the burden of showing Father's mental health was in question, though lacking specific factual findings. Both parties could submit information for the psychologist, excluding one-party consent audio recordings.

Father filed a petition for writ of certiorari to challenge the order compelling his psychological evaluation. Certiorari requires showing material injury not correctable by appeal and that the order departs from essential legal requirements, which Father established. Courts can compel psychological evaluations under section 61.20 or Rule 12.360, but parties must know which authority is being used. The order cited Mother's motion for a social investigation but ultimately granted the psychological evaluation under Rule 12.360. 

For a psychological examination under Rule 12.360, the requesting party must demonstrate both a matter in controversy and good cause for the evaluation. The court's failure to make necessary findings constitutes a legal departure. Seeking custody alone does not place a parent's mental health in controversy; verified claims of mental issues impacting parenting must be made. Mere relevance is insufficient; there must be allegations that could significantly affect a parent's ability to raise children.

A father's alleged failure to use a car seat, his child's minor behavioral issues post-visitation, and instances of inappropriate language were deemed insufficient to raise concerns about his mental health. In contrast, significant mental health issues, such as suicidal thoughts, documented disorders, or violent behavior, can trigger scrutiny. The mother’s reliance on general parenting disagreements and the father’s request for sole custody was inadequate to necessitate a psychological evaluation under rule 12.360, which focuses on substantial mental health indicators rather than parenting quality. The burden of proof is heightened when mental health is not voluntarily brought into question by the party being examined. Notably, the mother had previously indicated in her interrogatory response that the father's mental health was not an issue, and the court had granted him unsupervised visitation, suggesting a lack of concern regarding his mental stability.

Even if mental health is considered 'in controversy,' the requesting party must demonstrate 'good cause' for an evaluation, which requires evidence that the parent is unable to meet the child's needs or that the child's well-being is at risk. Previous cases indicate that minor issues, such as a child's transient distress or a parent's disagreements about financial values, do not establish good cause. The trial court's lack of factual findings to support its ruling and its continued allowance of unsupervised visitation with the father further suggest that there was insufficient basis to believe his mental state could harm the child. The mother’s claims of fear did not involve threats or violence from the father, and while his behavior was criticized, it did not prove his inability to provide for the child's needs or pose a risk to the child’s safety.

A forced psychological examination raises significant privacy concerns, as individuals have the right to avoid compulsory evaluations unless specific criteria are met. The Florida Supreme Court has warned against using mental health evaluations as vindictive measures in family law, noting that a parent's request for such an evaluation may reflect malicious intent and potentially harm the child. Courts historically require clear evidence of mental health issues that directly affect a parent's ability to care for their child before compelling psychological examinations.

In this case, while the Father's behavior may be questionable, it does not demonstrate substantial mental health issues justifying a psychological evaluation under rule 12.360. Furthermore, even if the Mother had established the necessary 'in controversy' and 'good cause' for the examination, the order lacked sufficient detail regarding the examination's parameters, such as time, place, manner, and scope, which are mandated by Florida Family Law Rule 12.360. Generic orders without specific guidelines violate legal requirements and grant excessive discretion to the psychologist.

Consequently, the order compelling the Father to undergo a psychological evaluation is deemed a departure from essential legal standards. The trial court failed to provide adequate factual findings to support 'in controversy' and 'good cause' for the evaluation. Additionally, the order inconsistently allows the Father unsupervised overnight visitation while simultaneously finding justification for the psychological examination. Due to these deficiencies, the court grants the Father's petition and quashes the order for the psychological evaluation. 

Judge Kelsey dissents, agreeing on jurisdiction and the necessity for proper procedures, emphasizing that evaluations should focus on the Father's current parenting ability.

The trial court's order for the Father to undergo psychological testing is supported by substantial evidence of his violent behavior in front of the minor children. The Mother testified that the Father frequently displays explosive rage, characterized by screaming, threats to damage property, and unpredictable outbursts. These incidents have caused emotional distress to their daughter, who is now in counseling. Specific examples include an incident where the Father threw items in the garage after a bike malfunction, using vulgar language that frightened the children, and another episode where he brandished a golf club in frustration over computer issues. The Mother expressed fear that the situation could escalate from verbal to physical abuse, stating she left due to this fear and the negative influence his behavior could have on their son. She highlighted that his rage can be triggered by minor issues and occurs multiple times a day, further contributing to a toxic environment for the children.

The Mother altered her work schedule and made child-care arrangements to prevent her daughter from being alone with the Father due to his escalating fits of rage, ultimately leaving the home with the children because of his conduct. The Father initially denied having rage incidents but later attributed his behavior to 'frustration with his computer,' claiming it was not directed at the children, although they witnessed it. The trial judge found this testimony sufficient to warrant a psychological evaluation of the Father, determining that his behavior was significant and troubling enough to support a domestic violence injunction under Florida law. The evidence indicated behaviors such as destruction of personal property, which qualifies for an injunction. Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators must monitor domestic violence incidents and address safety concerns. The Florida Bar advises attorneys to inquire about destructive behavior in domestic abuse situations. Evidence of domestic violence and angry outbursts has previously led to serious legal consequences, including the termination of parental rights and court-mandated psychological evaluations. The Mother's testimony provided good cause for the evaluation, demonstrating potential mental health issues affecting the Father’s parenting ability. The trial court's requirement for the psychological examination was supported by Florida Family Law Rules, which have been updated to specifically address family law cases. The Mother’s suggestions for alternative evaluations under section 61.20 and section 61.13 of the Florida Statutes were rejected, with the court noting that her arguments were not preserved for appeal.