ROBERT C. BRIDGES, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
JANICE H. BRIDGES, 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.
Robert Bridges sought certiorari review of a trial court order allowing a psychologist to testify regarding a minor child in a dissolution of marriage case, despite the psychologist not being court-appointed and the absence of notice to Bridges. The Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari review was not available for discretionary evidentiary rulings in family law proceedings.
Certiorari review of the trial court's non-final discretionary order is not available because such an order does not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law causing material injury, nor does it leave no adequate remedy on appeal. Discretionary rulings on evidentiary matters in family law cases are not appropriate subjects for certiorari review.
[1] A trial court's decision to permit or exclude the testimony of a mental health expert who has not been appointed by the court is within the court's broad discretion.
[2] When a parent has not been given notice of a child's treatment or testing by a mental health expert, this fact must be considered by the court as a basis for preventing s…
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 'fact that no notice' of such expert's treatment or testing of a child was given to one of the parents 'shall be considered by the court as a basis for preventing such testimony.'”
Establishes that under Florida Family Rule of Procedure 12.363(c), lack of notice is a factor that must be considered when determining whether to permit testimony from a non-court-appointed mental health expert.
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, the trial court denied Bridges's motion to exclude testimony from a psychologist who had met with the parties' mi…
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 Certiorari Review Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order in a dissolution of marriage action. The order denied petitioner’s motion to exclude the testimony of a psychologist who had met with the parties’ minor child, without notice being given to petitioner. Another evaluator has been appointed by the court at petitioner’s request. Florida Family Rule of Procedure 12.363(c) provides that a mental health expert who has not been appointed by the court under subsection (a) of the rule may testify only if the trial court “determines that good cause exists to permit the testimony.” The “fact that no notice” of such expert’s treatment or testing of a child was given to one of the parents “shall be considered by the court as a basis for preventing such testimony.” A decision under subsection (c) of the rule is within the broad discretion of the trial court.
In this type of case, certiorari review of a non-final order is available only if the order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings, and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. See Bared & Co. v. McGuire, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Even assuming that this court would find error in the trial court’s discretionary ruling on the motion in li-mine, this is not the type of issue for which certiorari lies. See Leibman v. Sportatorium, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Riano v. Heritage Corp. of South Florida, 665 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that writ of certiorari is reserved for those situations where “ ‘there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice’ ”) (quoting Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla.1983)).
The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.
POLEN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Perry R. Lloyd, III, M.D., 773 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…the non-final orders which are appealable. See In re Estate of Hayward, 463 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Also, the rulings are not reviewable through certiorari because an adequate remedy is available through final appeal. See Bridges v. Bridges, 734 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Hayward, 463 So. 2d at 446. Accordingly, we dismiss the cross-appeal without prejudice to appellees seeking review of their claims on final appeal. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., c…
-
Collins v. Collins, 873 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…e-weigh that factual determination. . Contrast the provisions of rule 12.363(b)(2) with those of 12.363(c), allowing an expert who has treated, tested, etc., the child to testify if good cause exists to permit the testimony. See Bridges v. Bridges, 734 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).…
-
Devine v. Kirkovich, 754 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ever, this is not a substantial reason nor sufficient legal cause for Kirkovich’s failure to timely file his independent action. See In re Estate of Goldman, 79 So. 2d at 848; In re Estate of Wilisch, 384 So. 2d at 223. See also Pearson v. Pefkarou, 734 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (rejecting argument that Pearson’s status as pro se litigant should excuse his failure to file his cause on a timely basis). The absence of a substantial reason or sufficient legal cause to justify the extension of time is particu…
Authorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- The Bared & Co., Inc. v. McGUIRE, 670 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Leibman v. Sportatorium, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Clark v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 665 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Hans-Juergen Stoever and Karin Stoever v. Vedder Homes, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)