Wade v. Wade 3d DCA 10/23/2013, is only about Rule 1.360. It is not about "psychological treatment." It reversed a trial court order requiring the mother to undergo a mental examination, not "psychological treatment."
A mental examination is not "psychological treatment." An examination looks at a person, physically or mentally or both. An examination is a snapshot of a person on a given day.
Treatment is something else altogether. Treatment typically extends over a period of time and involves an extended invasion of a person's privacy, while an examination invades a party's privacy to a more limited degree.
And that is the issue whenever an examination of a party is requested: Whether the invasion of the party's privacy is required by the issues in the case?
As for the order for the mother to enter into mental health treatment, the trial court order for the mother to enter into the child's counseling was not addressed by the appellate court. I find no authority in Chapter 61 or anywhere else for a trial court to order a child into medical treatment of any sort, including psychotherapy, much less a parent. The judge in a Chapter 39 case can do this, but not a judge in a Chapter 61 case. The medical treatment that a child should receive is a parenting decision. Trial judges in Chapter 61 cases do not raise children. Parents raise children. Prejudgment, the trial court in a case between separated parents can only pick a parent to make that decision if they cannot agree, by granting one parent sole parental authority or shared with ultimate authority over medical decisions, or give the authority to both parents by ordering shared parental responsibility. If the question is presented post judgment and the judgment ordered shared responsibility and the parents do not agree, the trial court has no authority to do anything at all, absent likely imminent danger to the child.
Likewise, I find no authority for a trial court to order a party in a family case to undergo mental health treatment. The appellate court in Wade does not discuss the trial court order requiring the mother to participate in the child's counseling, but it reverses that order nevertheless.
Rule 1.360 is most commonly used in personal injury cases, to require the plaintiff to undergo an independent medical examination. Its use in family cases is very rare, but it has been used in alimony cases, to require the party requesting alimony to undergo an examination. Its use for mental examinations is commonly denied by trial courts. Orders granting mental examinations in family cases are very rare and are commonly reversed by appellate courts, for the reasons stated in Wade. While parties in family cases can behave erratically, this is not "good cause" for a mental evaluation and episodes of childish behavior do not put their mental health "in controversy."
Wade v Wade is just another case reversing a trial court that ordered a mental examination of a party in a family case. There are dozens of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment