L.L., FATHER OF D.J., M.J., A.J., B.J. AND E.J., CHILDREN
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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.
Father L.L. appealed a supplemental disposition order requiring him to undergo a psychological evaluation as part of the case plan for his five dependent children. The court affirmed the requirement to complete the evaluation but remanded for the trial court to specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination.
The court affirmed the requirement for Father to complete a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations, finding good cause for the order. However, the court remanded the case for the trial court to amend the order to specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope of the examination, and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.
[1] A party seeking a compulsory psychological examination must affirmatively show that the condition is in controversy and that good cause exists for the examination.
[2] The burden is on the requesting party to establish good cause for each particular examination sought.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Father freely, voluntarily, and knowingly executed a written consent to his children being adjudicated dependent and that the trial court accepted Father's consent after sufficient colloquy.”
Establishes Father's prior informed agreement to adjudication and understanding of potential case plan modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFather L.L. is the father of five minor children (D.J., M.J., A.J., B.J., and E.J.) who were adjudicated dependent. Father executed a written consent …
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 Dependency Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
Kelley Schaeffer, of Children’s Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee Department of Children and Families.
Thomasina F. Moore and Sarah Todd Weitz, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Appellee Guardian ad Litem.
PER CURIAM.
L.L. (“Father”), the father of the minor children D.J., M.J., A.J., B.J., and E.J., appeals that portion of the supplemental disposition order adjudicating the children dependent that requires, as part of the case plan approved by the trial court, Father to complete a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations. The record shows that Father freely, voluntarily, and knowingly executed a written consent to his children being adjudicated dependent and that the trial court accepted Father’s consent after sufficient colloquy. In this document, Father acknowledged, among other things, that he understood that the trial court, either on its own motion or on motion of another party, could modify the case plan and order him to comply with repeated or additional tasks, including, but not limited to, a psychological and psychiatric evaluation. Nevertheless, Father objected to the evaluation.
Based upon our review of the entire record, which, without further elaboration, shows good cause for the court-ordered evaluation, we affirm the supplemental disposition order, including that portion of the order requiring Father to complete a psychological evaluation and to follow any recommendations resulting from the evaluation. We do, however, agree with the parties that a remand to the trial court is necessary so that the court can 2 amend the order to specify the “time, place, manner, conditions[,] and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.” See J.M. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 8 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (first quoting Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.250(b); and then citing D.C. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 966 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend order consistent with this opinion.
LAMBERT, HARRIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- D.C. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 966 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- J.M. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 8 So. 3d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)