SAMANTHA KING
v.
YONATHAN ARENAS ESCOBAR

Fla. 4th DCA | 2022-12-14
No. 22-1070
Harper
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Holding

An order compelling a parent to submit to a psychological examination in a custody dispute must specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination, and an open-ended order that gives the examiner discretion to conduct any testing deemed necessary constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law warranting certiorari relief.

Headnotes

[1] An order requiring a mental or psychological examination must specify the time, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 12.…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Key Quotes

“effectively gives the doctor 'carte blanche' to perform any type of psychological inquiry, testing, and analysis.”

The court's explanation for why the open-ended order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Facts & Procedural History

In a post-judgment paternity case, the trial court issued an order requiring the mother to submit to a psychological evaluation by a court-appointed d…

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.

Topics
Mental Condition In Controversy Essential Requirements Of Law Miscarriage Of Justice Good Cause

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mental Condition In Controversy cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

So. 3d at 1197 (quoting Manubens v. Manubens, 198 So. 3d 1072, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)). The trial court’s order in this case departs from the essential requirements of the law by failing to “specify the time, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination” as required by rule 12.360(a)(1)(B). The order allows the court-appointed doctor to conduct “necessary testing, including any testing the [doctor] may deem necessary, in his/her discretion, based on the allegations of the parties.” It does not specify the length of the evaluation, the subject matter of the evaluation, or the type of testing to be conducted. This type of open-ended order departs from the essential requirements of the law and results in a miscarriage of justice because it “effectively gives the doctor ‘carte blanche’ to perform any type of psychological inquiry, testing, and analysis.” Manubens, 198 So. 3d at 1074–75; accord Smart, 220 So. 3d at 1197–98 (quoting Manubens); see also Ludwigsen v. Ludwigsen, 313 So. 3d 709, 713–14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (an order that fails to contain the proper parameters constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law); Oldham v. Greene, 263 So. 3d 807, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (open-ended orders depart from the essential requirements of law because they do not provide specific directives). We therefore grant the petition in part and quash the order requiring the mother to submit to a psychological evaluation. The father may seek a new order that complies with rule 12.360(a)(1)(B). See Smart, 220 So. 3d at 1198 (giving the defendant permission to seek a new order to replace the first open-ended order); Maddox v. Bullard, 141 So. 3d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (allowing the defendant to seek a new order). We otherwise deny the petition without further comment. Petition granted in part and denied in part. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Jordanna Serena Sheermohamed v. Tozzi (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
    …injunction and restart supervised timesharing. In ordering such examination, we remind the circuit court that its order “must specify the time, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination” as required by rule 12.360(a)(1)(B). King v. Escobar, 352 So. 3d 26, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Reversed and remanded with directions. CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.…
  • Jordanna Serena Sheermohamed v. Tozzi (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
    …injunction and restart supervised timesharing. In ordering such examination, we remind the circuit court that its order “must specify the time, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination” as required by rule 12.360(a)(1)(B). King v. Escobar, 352 So. 3d 26, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Reversed and remanded with directions. CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw