B.R., THE MOTHER

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, ET AL.,

PER CURIAM.

B.R. (the “mother”), petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s disposition order requiring that she submit to a mental health evaluation as part of her dependency case plan, which has the goal of her reunification with A.G. (the “child”).

For the following reasons, we deny the petition. The child was born in September 2018, a month before the mother turned eighteen, and was fathered by the mother’s stepfather. Two months later, he was first sheltered by the Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), which filed a verified petition for dependency alleging that he was abused and neglected when found filthy, with a foul odor, while in the care of the father and another adult, both appearing to be under the influence of drugs. The child was briefly reunited with the mother but sheltered a second time in 2019, after she again left the infant with the father in violation of a court order, and while the father was under the influence. The child was placed in foster care and the matter was scheduled for a disposition hearing, during which the mother took a consent plea for negligence and abuse. In so doing, the mother admitted her need for trauma-informed individual therapy, which was ordered by the court, but objected to the accompanying order for a mental health assessment to ensure that she received the correct services. “Certiorari review is warranted when a nonfinal order: (1) cannot be remedied on post-judgment appeal, (2) results in material injury for the remainder of the case,

and (3) departs from the essential requirements of law.” A.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 277 So. 3d 704, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Because “[a] forced psychological examination has serious privacy implications[,] people have the right to be free from compulsory examination absent circumstances meeting the [legal] requirements.” Oldham v. Greene, 263 So. 3d 807, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), see also Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369, 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Generally, the granting or denying of an order for a mental health evaluation is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which can be overturned “only upon a conclusion that no judge could reasonably have ordered such an evaluation.” E.P.V. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 278 So. 3d 749, 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 176 So. 3d 344, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)).

Section 39.407(15), Florida Statutes (2019), provides: At any time after the filing of a shelter petition or petition for dependency, when the mental or physical condition, including the blood group, of a parent, caregiver, legal custodian, or other person who has custody or is requesting custody of a child is in controversy, the court may order the person to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified professional. The order may be made only upon good cause shown and pursuant to notice and procedures as set forth by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The First District Court of Appeal has explained: The showing of “good cause” which would warrant a court-compelled mental examination of a parent seeking custody of a dependent child should be based on evidence

that the parent has been unable to meet the special needs of the child. This finding may be based on the parent’s past conduct or behavior regarding the child, or on information developed through interview of the parent by a skilled person which indicates a need for psychiatric or psychological evaluation of the parent to assist in training the parent to meet the child’s special needs. It is not necessary to show that the parent suffers substantial psychiatric or psychological impairment as a predicate for good cause. In other words, the party moving for a mental examination of a person seeking custody of a dependent child, must be able to articulate a reason or reasons that the examination is necessary. S.N. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 529 So. 2d 1156, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Based on the mother’s admission that she needed trauma therapy connected to her ongoing relationship with her abuser and exposure of the child to him, the trial court determined that her mental health was in controversy and “good cause” existed for an assessment to inform the acts she was tasked to complete before reunification with the child.¹ See E.P.V., 278 So. 3d at 751; Wade, 124 So. 3d at 375; J.P., 855 So. 2d at 176. Because reasonable people could differ when confronted with the facts considered below, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Necessarily, therefore, it did not depart from the essential requirements of law. Petition denied.