JEFFERY M. RILEY, PETITIONER,
v.
IZABELA B. RILEY, 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.
Jeffrey Riley sought certiorari to quash a circuit court order requiring him and his two minor daughters to undergo psychological examinations in a dissolution case. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the trial court violated due process by entering the order without a pending motion, hearing, or opportunity for the parties to respond.
The trial court violated due process rights and departed from the essential requirements of law by entering the order compelling psychological examinations without a pending motion, hearing, or opportunity for the parties to respond. The order was quashed as an error for which there is no adequate remedy upon direct appeal.
[1] A trial court violates due process rights when it orders a party to submit to psychological examinations without a pending motion, a hearing, or an opportunity to respond…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by ordering psychological examinations of parties or children without proper motion, hearing, or opportunity…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Mr. Riley's due process rights clearly were violated, and the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it entered the order directing him to submit to a psychological examination.”
Establishes the core holding that due process was violated by the trial court's entry of the order without proper procedures.
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 matter, the trial court received a letter from the pediatrician for the parties' children. Based solely on this letter, the trial cou…
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 Right To Cross-Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Jeffery M. Riley petitions this court to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the cir cuit court order which compelled him and his two minor daughters to submit to psychological examinations. We grant the petition.
The order was entered in a dissolution matter after the trial court received a letter from the pediatrician for the parties’ children. Based upon the contents of the letter, the trial court entered the order which is the subject of this petition.
There was no pending motion to request that Mr. Riley be required to submit to a psychological examination. No hearing was conducted prior to the entry of the order or on rehearing to allow Mr. Riley to respond to the letter from the pediatrician. Mr. Riley’s due process rights clearly were violated, and the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it entered the order directing him to submit to a psychological examination.
With regard to the children’s compelled psychological examinations, Izabela B. Riley responds to the petition and argues that the examinations were authorized under the ruling of the trial judge who previously had been assigned to this dissolution case. The prior judge had reserved ruling on a motion to compel psychological examinations of the children and stated, “[Mrs. Riley] is hereby granted leave to provide more information concerning the usefulness or appropriateness of such testing. The Court will convene such hearing as may be necessary to rule on any renewed motion in this regard.” The successor judge considered the letter from the children’s pediatrician to be sufficient evidence to support the order for psychological examinations of Mr. Riley and the children.
The record reveals that there was no “renewed motion” for psychological examinations of the children filed prior to entry of the order compelling the examinations. Further, because the trial court did not conduct a hearing prior to entering the order or on rehearing to afford the parties their right to cross-examine the doctor and to present their arguments against such examinations, the due process rights of the children were also violated.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by entering the order directing Mr. Riley and the children to submit to psychological examinations. The error is one for which there is no adequate remedy upon direct appeal.
The petition is granted. The “Order Requiring Psychological Evaluations of Minor Children and Husband” dated May 25, 2005, is quashed.
CASANUEVA and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruiz v. Richard-Alexander D'Arbelles (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…her to undergo a psychological evaluation. By failing to follow the requirements of Rule 12.360, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law resulting in irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Riley v. Riley, 915 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding the trial court violated father's due process rights and departed from essential requirements of law by ordering a psychological examination with no pending motion to request he submit to a psychological examination…