Bentrim v. Bentrim
| Decision Date | 09 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4D21-1303 |
| Citation | 335 So.3d 706 |
| Parties | Angela BENTRIM, Appellant, v. Jeffrey BENTRIM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Margherita Downey of the Law Office of Margherita Downey LLC, Delray Beach, for appellant.
Robert M. Lewis of the Law Office of Robert M. Lewis LLC, Jupiter, for appellee.
This case represents another chapter in a long-running saga of post-dissolution proceedings by these parties in both the lower and appellate courts. In this particular matter, Angela Bentrim ("Former Wife") appeals the trial court's order denying her motion for contempt without prejudice and granting Jeffrey Bentrim's ("Former Husband") motion for contempt against her. We reverse the contempt order obtained by Former Husband but affirm on all other issues without comment.
The parties divorced in 2009. After their dissolution was finalized, they continued filing various motions against each other. In April 2020, the court adopted a general magistrate's findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending the parties' minor child attend counseling. The court order required the parties to agree on a counselor within fifteen days and included that "[a]ll communications between the child and her therapist shall remain confidential as provided in Florida law, Section 90.503, Florida Statutes."
Former Wife submitted three potential counselors for Former Husband's consideration. Former Husband stated a preference for one name on the list, a social worker, whom the child had been seeing. Former Wife then allegedly took the child to see another potential counselor, a psychologist, without Former Husband's knowledge or consent. Upon learning of this in October 2020, Former Husband moved for contempt against Former Wife, claiming she failed to agree to a mutually acceptable counselor in violation of the court order.
The trial court conducted a hearing on Former Husband's motion and took testimony from the social worker. She testified that she initially obtained consent from Former Wife to see the child. In December 2020, Former Wife sent her an email advising that she did not want the social worker to treat the child any longer and requested copies of her notes for the sessions she had with the child. Unaware of the April 2020 order, the social worker sent these notes to both parents pursuant to that request. Toward the end of the hearing, Former Husband made an oral motion requesting that Former Wife be held in contempt because she requested and received the confidential records from the social worker in violation of the April 2020 order.
Days after the hearing concluded, the trial court issued an order granting Former Husband's motion for contempt. The trial court found the April 2020 order required all communications between the counselor and child be kept confidential and that Former Wife's request violated the order. The trial court ordered that neither party could use the records obtained from the social worker in any proceedings, sanctioned Former Wife by requiring her to pay for all services rendered by both the psychologist and the social worker, and awarded Former Husband $1,200.00 in attorney's fees payable in thirty days. This appeal follows.
"A judgment of contempt comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness and will not be overturned unless a clear showing is made that the trial court either abused its discretion or departed so substantially from the essential requirements of law as to have committed fundamental error." Harris v. Hampton , 70 So. 3d 747, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting DeMello v. Buckman , 914 So. 2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ).
Although the April 2020 order stated that communications between the counselor and the child would be confidential, this was not sufficiently explicit to provide fair notice to the parties that neither parent could request these notes, since ordinarily parents have the right of access to their children's records. See § 90.503, Fla. Stat. (2019). Section 90.503(1), Florida Statutes (2019), "psychotherapist-patient privilege" allows for certain communication disclosures:
The privilege may be claimed by a "guardian or conservator of the patient." § 90.503(3)(b), Fla. Stat (2019). "[P]arents, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial