Rose v. Rose
This text of 519 So. 2d 6 (Rose v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
519 So. 2d 6, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2035, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9978, 1987 WL 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-rose-fladistctapp-1987.