Jordan v. Jordan

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JEFFREY JORDAN,
Petitioner,
v. Case No. 5D15-3915
LISA JORDAN,
Respondent.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 4, 2016
Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from
the Circuit Court for Hernando County,
Curtis J. Neal, Judge.
Audrey A. Jefferis, of Law Office of Audrey
Jefferis, PA, New Port Richey, for
Petitioner.
Robert B. Snow, of Robert Bruce Snow,
P.A., Brooksville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Jordan (“Petitioner”) seeks certiorari review of an order requiring him to
submit to a psychosexual examination, which emanates from dissolution of marriage
proceedings with Lisa Jordan (“Respondent”). The trial court rendered the order
concluding that “a psycho-sexual evaluation is essential to enable the Court to adequately
direct the Father’s contact with the children.” We grant the petition for certiorari because
the order under review departs from the essential requirements of the law, resulting in a
miscarriage of justice.
Petitioner argues that good cause for the order was never established and that the
trial court failed to make the finding that his mental condition was in controversy. The
order does not address either requirement, and “[t]his alone may be sufficient to overturn
the trial court’s order.” Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). Without
a transcript of the hearing, we are unable to determine from the record before us whether
sufficient evidence was presented to support these two requirements.
We also believe that the scope of the order is too broad. The order requires that
Petitioner undergo an examination without specifying what that entails in terms of, for
example, “the length of the examination, the type of testing, or whether the testing is
limited to ‘methods routine to the profession.’” Barry v. Barry, 159 So. 3d 306, 308 (Fla.
5th DCA 2015) (quoting In re T.M.W., 553 So. 2d 260, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)). As this
court explained in Maddox v. Bullard, 141 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014):
The trial court’s order does not specify the manner, conditions,
or scope of the examination, thereby, in effect, giving the
psychologist “carte blanche” to perform any type, and all
manner, of psychological inquiry, testing, and analysis on
Maddox for up to four continuous hours. This violates clearly
established principles of law, resulting in a miscarriage of
justice.
Id. at 1266.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order under review. We remand
this case to the trial court for further proceedings. If Respondent persists in her request
for an examination, a hearing should be held and appropriate findings of fact made in
accordance with this opinion.
2
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED; REMANDED.
SAWAYA, PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
3