IN THE INTEREST OF J.T.M., B.W., K.L.W., MINOR CHILDREN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 mother appealed from an order following adjudication of dependency of her three children, challenging the trial court's requirement that she undergo psychological evaluation and its suspension of her visitation rights. The appellate court reversed the psychological evaluation requirement and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether good cause exists for such evaluation, finding the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements.
The trial court erred in requiring psychological evaluation without establishing good cause as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.750(b). The challenge to the visitation suspension is moot because visitation was reinstated. The court did not reach the mother's challenges to the sufficiency of the dependency allegations and evidence because the dependency adjudication became final without appeal.
[1] A trial court's order requiring a psychological evaluation of a parent in a dependency proceeding must comply with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.750(b).
[2] A direct appeal from an order requiring a psychological evaluation in a dependency proceeding is not procedurally distinct from a certiorari review for purposes of determ…
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“the state concedes that it was error to require the evaluation absent compliance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.750(b) as interpreted in In the Interest of S.N, 529 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)”
Establishes the legal error in requiring psychological evaluation without procedural compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThree minor children were adjudicated dependent on September 18, 1987. On October 27, 1987, the trial court ordered the children placed in temporary c…
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 Good Cause For Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The mother of three minor children appeals from an order, following adjudication of dependency, which suspended her visitation rights and required her to undergo psychological evaluation. Of the four issues raised on appeal, we reach the merits of only the one relating to psychological evaluation. With respect to that issue, we remand for further proceedings.
On 18 September 1987, the trial court entered an order adjudicating the children dependent. On 27 October 1987, an order was entered reaffirming the dependency adjudication and ordering placement of the children in the temporary custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for foster care placement. On 8 December 1987, the trial court entered an order requiring HRS to have a psychological evaluation done on the mother and suspending her visitation rights until approval by a therapist. Only the 8 December 1987 order was appealed.
The mother first challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the dependency petition and the sufficiency of the evidence in support thereof. She then argues that the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating the children dependent based on neglect. We do not reach these issues, however, because the dependency adjudication became final without an appeal.
As to the trial court’s requirement in the order appealed, that the mother undergo psychological evaluation, the state concedes that it was error to require the evaluation absent compliance with Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.750(b) as interpreted in In the Interest of S.N, 529 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). In S.N., the order requiring the examination was quashed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings and receipt of additional evidence on the issue of good cause for an examination. Appellant argues that we should not remand in this case because S.N. was reviewed pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari, while this is a direct appeal. We have been offered no reason why this procedural distinction should make a difference, however, so we remand for further proceedings on the psychological examination question.
As the last issue raised on appeal, the mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion in terminating visitation. But in her statement of the case and facts in the initial brief, the mother states that the trial court reinstated visitation for one hour every other week, commencing 4 May 1988. The appellee has accepted the appellant’s statement of the case and facts. The challenge to the termination of visitation is therefore moot.
That part of the appealed order requiring psychological evaluation is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings.
ERVIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 703 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…be ordered to submit to a mental or physical examination. Since no good cause was shown, the failure to comply with the appropriate rule of juvenile procedure warrants that the case be remanded for further proceedings on the issue. J.T.M. v. State, 530 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. THOMPSON, J., concurs. W. SHARP, ■ J., dissents in part; concurs in part with opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of S.N. v. State, 529 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)