Rose v. Rose

519 So. 2d 6, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2035, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9978, 1987 WL 571
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 18, 1987·No. Nos. 87-796, 87-874·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated emergency petitions are brought from two orders entered after a dissolution of marriage which appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor children of the parties and sua sponte appoint a psychiatrist to examine the children.

We have examined the record and find that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in appointing a guardian for the limited purpose of facilitating the father’s exercise of visitation rights. The guardian was appointed for the purpose of eliminating hostile confrontations between the parties in the presence of the children.1

The appointment of a psychiatrist to examine or treat the minor children, however, was a clear departure from the law. The competent and substantial evidence shows without dispute that the children have a beneficial and comfortable relationship with the present court-appointed psychiatrist and that introduction of another psychiatrist into these proceedings would be harmful. A compulsory mental examination has been traditionally deemed an invasion of privacy which will be tolerated only upon a showing of good cause. Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So.2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1378 (Fla.1980).

Certiorari is granted and the order appointing a new psychiatrist to examine the children is quashed. As to the order appointing a guardian, certiorari is denied.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rose v. Rose, 519 So. 2d 6, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2035, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9978, 1987 WL 571 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

519 So. 2d 6 (Rose v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schottenstein v. Schottenstein
384 So. 2d 933 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)