KRISTIN AHR KOCH, PETITIONER,
v.
DANIEL L. KOCH, 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 party seeking custody in a dissolution proceeding does not waive the confidentiality of mental health treatment records simply by acknowledging past alcohol problems and treatment.
In a dissolution proceeding, the husband sought the wife's psychotherapist records. The wife objected, citing confidentiality, but the trial court ove…
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 Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
In this dissolution proceeding, in which child custody is at issue, the husband sought to obtain the records of the treating psychotherapists and other confidential medical information pertaining to the wife. After the trial court overruled the wife’s objection, she filed this petition for certiorari, relying on Attorney Ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In D.K we held that, in dissolution proceedings, a party does not waive confidentiality of mental health treatment by requesting custody. We explained:
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 308.
In this case the trial court concluded that the wife had waived any privilege or right of privacy because her counsel acknowledged that she had an alcohol problem in the past, had received treatment, and was currently a recovering alcoholic. The information regarding alcoholism does not rise to the level of an event or condition contemplated by D.K. We accordingly grant the petition and quash the order which denied protection as to depositions and subpoenas for records.
STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Camilla B. Zarzaur v. Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…40 (Fla. 5th DCA [*1119] 2002) (holding waiver of privilege is evaluated based on what occurs “during a pending custody dispute”). Previous substance abuse problems and treatment, without more, are insufficient to invade the privilege. Koch v. Koch, 961 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Here, the trial court did not appropriately limit the temporal reach of its order, even assuming the facts otherwise justified overcoming the privilege. Husband’s most recent motion requested only three years’ worth of di…
-
Ricketts v. Ricketts (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The law with regard to a party's medical records in dissolution proceedings is clear. Requesting custody, time-sharing, or parental responsibility does not place a party's mental health at issue. See, e.g., Koch v. Koch, 961 So. 2d 1134, 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Neither parent has alleged that the other is unfit to have time-sharing with their children. See Quinney, 890 So. 2d at 409; cf. Schouw v. Schouw, 593 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that even where both…
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)