Schouw v. Schouw

• Decision Date: 19 February 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-03801,91-03801
• Citation: Schouw v. Schouw, 593 So.2d 1200 (Fla. App. 1992)
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Weekly D537 Alan Vander SCHOUW, Petitioner, v. Annette Vander SCHOUW, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1200

593 So.2d 1200

17 Fla. L. Weekly D537

Alan Vander SCHOUW, Petitioner, v.Annette Vander SCHOUW, Respondent.

No. 91-03801.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

Feb. 19, 1992.

John P. Fleck, Jr., Bradenton, for petitioner.

D. Howard Stitzel, III of Muga & Real, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, the husband in a dissolution of marriage action, seeks a writ of certiorari reviewing an order which granted the wife's motion to compel a psychological evaluation of the husband and for release of the husband's psychological records.

First, the husband contends that the order directing the release of his psychological records departs from the essential requirements of law because it violates the psychotherapist-patient privilege found in section 90.503(2), Florida Statutes(1991), which provides:

(2) A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of his mental or emotional condition, including alcoholism and other drug addiction, between himself and his psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist.This privilege includes any diagnosis made, and advice given, by the psychotherapist in the course of that relationship.

Section 90.503(4)(c) states:

(4) There is no privilege under this section:

....

(c) For communications relevant to an issue of the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense or, after the patient's death, in any proceeding in which any party relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense.

In the action below, both parties have requested to be the primary residential parent of the parties' two minor children.The children are presently residing with the husband.Both parties have brought into question the other's psychological fitness to be the custodial parent.While the mental health of a parent in a child custody case is relevant, mere allegations that a parent is mentally unstable are not sufficient to place that parent's mental health at issue and overcome the psychotherapist-patient privilege.Roper v. Roper, 336 So.2d 654, 656(Fla. 4th DCA1976).The only other allegations, the wife's claims regarding the husband's mental condition in 1986, are outdated and...