RODOLFO CARRILLO-JIMENEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
CELINA CARRILLO, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court's denial of his motion to strike a social investigation report in dissolution proceedings, arguing that confidential communications between his minor children and their psychotherapist were improperly disclosed without consent. The court denied the petition, holding that a parent lacks standing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of a minor child when the parent has a conflicting interest and the child is not a party to the underlying action.
A parent lacks standing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of a minor child when the parent is involved in litigation seeking to pursue his or her own interests and the child is not a party to the underlying action. Therefore, petitioner cannot challenge the disclosure of confidential communications between his children and their psychotherapist.
[1] A parent involved in litigation seeking to pursue their own interests lacks standing to assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of a minor child who is not…
[2] A trial court order denying a motion to strike a social investigation report may be quashed by writ of certiorari if irreparable harm is demonstrated.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a parent lacked standing to assert the statutory privilege found in section 90.503 on behalf of his or her minor child, where the parent is involved in litigation seeking to pursue his or her own interests, and the child is not a party to the underlying action”
Establishes the holding that a parent cannot assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege for a minor child when the parent has conflicting interests in the litigation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn dissolution of marriage proceedings, a social investigation report was prepared that included confidential communications between petitioner's mino…
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 Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Rodolfo Carrillo-Jimenez, petitioned this court to issue a writ of certio-rari, Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(3), quashing a trial court order denying his amended motion to strike a social investigation report prepared in the dissolution of marriage proceedings below. See § 61.20(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). He alleges that in preparation of this report, confidential communications between his children and their psychotherapist were improperly disclosed by the psychotherapist to the report’s author without the consent of the minor children, for whom no guardian ad litem was appointed by the trial court, in violation of section 90.503, Florida Statutes (2010). Petitioner claims irreparable harm in the trial court’s future consideration of the report’s contents, including the privileged information which would disadvantage him in the proceedings.
We deny the petition based on Hughes v. Schatzberg, 872 So.2d 996, 997-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), where we held that a parent lacked standing to assert the statutory privilege found in section 90.503 on behalf of his or her minor child, where the parent is involved in litigation seeking to pursue his or her own interests, and the child is not a party to the underlying action. As petitioner seeks to strike the *491social investigation report due to his perception that the confidential information placed in the report by its author is to his disadvantage in the ongoing custody aspect of this dissolution proceeding, he falls squarely within the rationale for the holding in Hughes. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari in this case.
Petition denied.
WARNER, STEVENSON and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.