Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 11, 2023.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1673
Lower Tribunal No. 17-3528
________________
Amal Crane,
Petitioner,
vs.
Matthew Harrison Crane,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.
Amal Crane, in proper person.
Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
respondent.
Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
SCALES, J.
Petitioner Amal Crane (the Mother) seeks certiorari relief to quash a
September 1, 2022 trial court order (the Order) that granted respondent
Matthew Harrison Crane’s (the Father) motions for psychological evaluation
and social investigation. The Mother argues that the Order failed to comply
with the essential requirements of law and violated her right of due process.
We deny the petition challenging that portion of the Order requiring the
Mother to submit to a psychological evaluation, and we dismiss, for lack of
jurisdiction, the petition challenging that portion of the Order ordering a social
investigation.
The parties are divorced and are the parents of two children, one of
whom is a minor child with special needs. Commencing in November 2021,
the parties filed competing motions for modification of their then-existing
timesharing and parental responsibility agreement. Each party alleged that
the other party is psychologically unequipped to care for their special needs
son. Further, the Father alleged that the Mother sought to alienate his
children from him, and the Mother alleged that the Father was an abusive
parent.
To assist the trial court in adjudicating the parties’ competing motions,
the trial court appointed a Guardian ad Litem who recommended, among
other things, that both parents undergo psychological evaluation. The Father
2
voluntarily agreed to be evaluated and, pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule
of Procedure 12.360, filed a June 2022 motion seeking an order compelling
the Mother to undergo a psychological evaluation. On August 28, 2022, the
Father filed a supplemental motion that additionally sought the trial court to
order a social investigation as authorized pursuant to section 61.20 of the
Florida Statutes. Also on August 28, 2022, the Father set his motions for an
August 30, 2022 hearing in a second amended notice of hearing.
At the August 30, 2022 hearing, the Mother’s counsel objected to the
trial court considering the Father’s motion for a social investigation, arguing
that the Father’s motion requesting the social investigation, and the notice of
hearing thereon, were filed a mere two days earlier. The trial court overruled
the objection and conducted the hearing at which the Guardian ad Litem
provided the principal testimony. In her testimony, the Guardian ad Litem
recommended that the trial court order a social investigation with each parent
undergoing a psychological evaluation as a component of the social
investigation. On September 1, 2022, the trial court entered the Order, in
which it ordered both a social investigation of the family pursuant to section
61.20 of the Florida Statutes, and psychological evaluations of both parents
pursuant to rule 12.360.
3
In her certiorari petition to this Court, the Mother argues that we should
quash this order because: (i) there is no competent, substantial evidence
that the Mother’s mental health is in controversy, as required by rule 12.360;1
and (ii) the Mother was denied due process because she did not receive
proper notice that the trial court would consider and compel a social
investigation.
This Court has certiorari jurisdiction to review an order compelling a
psychological evaluation. Pearson v. Pearson, 332 So. 3d 53, 54 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2021). To obtain certiorari relief, though, the petitioner must establish
that, in ordering the evaluation, the trial court departed from the essential
requirements of law. Ludwigsen v. Ludwigsen, 313 So. 3d 709, 712 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2020). In this case, the Mother has not made the required showing. In
the Order, the trial court made sufficient findings, consistent with rule 12.360,
that the Mother’s mental health was in controversy and that good cause
existed for a psychological evaluation. Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369, 375-
76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). These findings are supported by the testimony of the
1
In relevant part, rule 12.360 provides as follows: “A party may request any
other party to submit to . . . examination by a qualified expert when the
condition that is the subject of the requested examination is in controversy. .
. . An examination under this rule is authorized only when the party
submitting the request has good cause for the examination.” Fla. Fam. L. R.
P. 12.360(a)(1),(2).
4
Guardian ad Litem which constitutes competent, substantial evidence. See
Young v. Hector, 740 So. 2d 1153, 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), on reh’g (July
14, 1999) (en banc). We therefore deny the Mother’s petition to the extent
that it challenges the Order requiring the Mother to undergo a psychological
evaluation.
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the Mother’s petition challenging the
portion of the Order that orders a social investigation, pursuant to section
61.20(1). Presumably, in an attempt to establish the requisite irreparable
harm for our exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, the Mother’s petition asserts
in conclusory fashion that the Mother was denied due process because the
trial court ordered a social investigation a mere two days after the filing of
the Father’s supplemental motion. We have been provided no legal authority,
however, that suggests a trial court must provide any notice to the parties
prior to ordering a social investigation pursuant to section 61.20.2 Indeed,
Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.364(b) expressly authorizes the
trial court to order such an investigation on its own motion in any family law
case (such as this one) “where the parenting plan is at issue because the
parents are unable to agree. . . .” § 61.20(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). The Father’s
2
Certainly, a party has a due process right to receive and potentially
challenge the results of a social investigation. See, e.g., J.D.C. v. M.E.H.,
118 So. 3d 933, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).
5
motion on two days’ notice asking the trial court to order a social investigation
therefore does not in itself implicate a due process concern.
The Mother otherwise has not made a showing of how she was
irreparably harmed simply by the trial court’s ordering a social investigation
in this case. Without any showing of irreparable harm, we are compelled to
dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, the Mother’s petition challenging the portion
of the Order that orders a social investigation. See Stockinger v. Zeilberger,
152 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The establishment of irreparable
harm is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction.”). 3
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part.
3
We note that a court may also compel a psychological evaluation of a party
as part of a social investigation ordered pursuant to section 61.20(1).
Oldham v. Greene, 263 So. 3d 807, 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); see also
Russenberger v. Russenberger, 639 So. 2d 963, 966 (Fla. 1994) (“A trial
judge has the discretion to order a psychological evaluation pursuant to
chapter 61. In such a case, the judge need not comply with the requirements
of rule 1.360.”).
6
AMAL CRANE v. MATTHEW HARRISON CRANE
Combined Opinion