MATTHEW W. LOUGHLIN, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
KIM LOUGHLIN, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In this dissolution action, the trial court ordered supervised visitation, drug testing, and a psychological evaluation for the husband. The appellate court affirmed most of the order but reversed the provision allowing release of the husband's confidential medical and psychological records, holding that an independent evaluation is the proper method to obtain necessary psychological information without breaching therapist-patient confidentiality.
The court affirmed the trial court's orders requiring supervised visitation, drug testing, and psychological evaluation but reversed the portion authorizing release of the husband's confidential medical, social, psychiatric, and psychological records. The proper method to obtain necessary psychological information is through an independent examination, not disclosure of privileged records.
[1] In dissolution actions with disputed custody, a party requesting custody does not automatically waive confidentiality of mental health treatment or make their mental heal…
[2] A parent's mental health is generally not considered at issue to the extent of waiving statutory privilege in a custody dispute unless calamitous events, such as attempte…
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“a party does not waive confidentiality of mental health treatment and make his or her mental health an "element of his claim or defense" simply by requesting custody”
Establishes that seeking custody in a dissolution case does not automatically forfeit mental health confidentiality protections
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial court issued a non-final order requiring the husband to submit to supervised visitation with the parties'…
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 Child Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
[*83] PER CURIAM.
The trial court entered a non-final order in this dissolution action specifying that Husband’s visitation with the parties’ children be supervised, that Husband submit to drug testing, and that Husband obtain an evaluation from a psychologist to assess his parenting abilities and to determine whether he has substance abuse or other problems which could harm the children. We agree with the trial court’s conclusions and affirm its order except to the extent that the order authorizes the release of Husband’s medical and psychological records. As explained in Attorney ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001):
In a dissolution proceeding where custody is disputed, a party does not waive confidentiality of mental health treatment and make his or her mental health an “element of his claim or defense” simply by requesting custody. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 404 So. 2d 208, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Only in situations where calamitous events such as an attempted suicide occur during a pending custody dispute have courts found that the mental health of the parent is sufficiently at issue to warrant finding no statutory privilege exists. See Miraglia v. Miraglia, 462 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Otherwise, the courts have instructed that the more appropriate method of securing the necessary information regarding the parent’s psychological state to aid in determining the best interest of the child is to require an independent psychological or psychiatric examination of the parent or parents. In this way, the trial court obtains essential information without interfering with the psychotherapist/patient confidentiality privilege. See Leonard v. Leonard, 673 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Schouw v. Schouw, 593 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Id. at 309.
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review with the exception of paragraph 10, which authorizes the release of the “medical, social, psychiatric, and psychological history” of Husband to the evaluating psychologist.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
MONACO, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Critchlow v. Critchlow, 347 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Attorney AD Litem FOR D.K. v. The Parents OF D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Vander Schouw v. Vander Schouw, 593 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Miraglia v. Miraglia, 462 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Leonard v. Leonard, 673 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- McINTYRE v. McINTYRE, 404 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)