LINDA BAKER MCINTYRE, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH E. MCINTYRE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A wife in a dissolution of marriage action challenges an order requiring her personal psychiatrist to disclose medical records to a court-appointed psychologist. The Florida District Court of Appeal holds that the psychotherapist-patient privilege protects such records in custody disputes, even when the wife's fitness as a parent is at issue, because the trial court has an adequate alternative tool through court-appointed mental health experts.
The psychotherapist-patient privilege is not waived merely by seeking custody in a child custody dispute. Although mental health may be relevant in custody cases, the trial court must balance determining parental mental health against maintaining therapist-patient confidentiality. Where, as here, the court has appointed independent mental health experts to examine both parties, there is no necessity to breach the privilege by requiring disclosure of personal therapy records.
[1] The psychotherapist-patient privilege is violated when a court orders a patient's personal psychiatrist to surrender medical records to a court-appointed psychologist in…
[2] In child custody disputes, a spouse does not make their mental condition an element of their defense simply by seeking custody.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is no privilege under this section: (c) For communications relevant to an issue of the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense”
The statutory exception to psychotherapist-patient privilege that the respondent relied upon, which the court interpreted narrowly
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage action, both parties claimed fitness to have custody of minor children. The trial court appointed a psychiatrist and psyc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. Stat. § 90.503 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Petitioner, wife in a dissolution of marriage action, seeks relief by writ of certiorari from an order requiring her personal psychiatrist to surrender her medical records to a court-appointed psychologist. She contends that this is a violation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege found in section 90.503, Florida Statutes (1979). We agree and grant the writ. In the action below both parties alleged that they were fit and proper to have the care, custody and control of their minor children, while denying that their spouse was so suited. The court appointed a psychiatrist and a psychologist to examine each of the parties. The court-appointed psychologist informed the court that it would be helpful for him to review the records of the wife’s personal psychiatrist before he made his custody recommendation. He further informed the trial judge that this review would be in the best interests of the court, the parties and the children. The wife objected on the basis of the psychotherapist-patient privilege and the lower court overruled her objection.
Section 90.503(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), provides:
(4) There is no privilege under this section:
(c) For communications relevant to an issue of the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense ....
Two Florida districts have held in child custody disputes that a spouse does not make his or her mental condition “an element of his or her defense” simply by seeking custody. See Mohammad v. Mohammad, 358 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA. 1976). The court in Roper noted:
We recognize that in a child custody case the mental health of a parent may be a relevant issue. Where this issue is raised the trial court must maintain a proper balance, determining on the one hand the mental health of the parents as this relates to the best interest of the child, and on the other maintaining confidentiality between a treating psychiatrist and patient. The court in this case has an alternate tool which may accomplish both purposes. Upon proper motion the court may order a compulsory psychiatric examination.
Id. at 656-57.
In the case sub judice the trial judge used this alternate tool by appointing the psychiatrist and psychologist. Unless there is a radical change in the proceedings similar to Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), where the wife was committed for mental treatment during a child custody dispute, this alternate tool of court-appointed experts should eliminate any need to breach the psychotherapist-patient privilege. We are sympathetic with the trial judge’s dilemma and recognize that his ruling was directed only towards the best interests of the children. However, since he had appointed both a psychiatrist and a psychologist to examine both the parties here, we see no necessity to invade the wife’s privilege with her personal psychotherapist. Accordingly, the trial court’s order requiring the wife’s psychiatrist to submit records to the court-appointed psychologist is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Attorney AD Litem FOR D.K. v. The Parents OF D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…Fla.Stat. (2000). However, the statute contains no eviden-tiary standards. Instead, the psychotherapist/patient privilege is recognized to apply in dissolution of mai'riage proceedings involving child custody issues. See, e.g., McIntyre v. McIntyre, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). While the parents assert the need of the trial court for information necessary to decide the child custody issue, the trial court may not ignore the rules of evidence. Indeed, even if we could somehow construe section 61.13 as a…
-
Vander Schouw v. Vander Schouw, 593 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ted method for balancing the court’s need to determine the parents’ mental health as it relates to the best interest of the child, and the need to maintain the confidentiality between a treating psychotherapist and the patient. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). However, such examinations are not automatic and should only be ordered upon a showing of good cause — evidence that the parent has been unable to meet the [*1202] special needs of the child. Williams v. Williams, 550 So. 2d 166…
-
O'Neill v. O'Neill, 823 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ent ability and condition.” Schouw v. Schouw, 593 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). By seeking custody or by seeking to retain custody, a parent does not make his or her mental condition an element of the claim or defense. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 404 So. 2d 208, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Moreover, one party does not create a calamitous event by merely claiming that the opposing party has an unfit mental or emotional state to have custody of the minor children. In Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453, 455 (…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Thellie S. Roper v. Roper, 336 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Mahmood Mohammad v. Shala Mohammad, 358 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)