Opinion ID: 1234884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Trial Court Abuse its Discretion in Failing to Order a Psychiatric Examination of Anne Dingeman?

Text: On January 13, 1992, Bob filed a motion with the superior court based on Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 35 requesting that Anne be ordered to undergo psychological testing. The rule provides: (a) Order for Examination. When the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of a party, or of a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician or to produce for examination the person in his custody or legal control. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown... . Alaska R.Civ.P. 35. The court denied the motion, noting that if the Child Custody Investigator requested testing, the court would order the testing. Bob argues that as his affidavit and memorandum in support of the motion clearly placed the mental condition of Anne Dingeman at issue, the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering the examination. Bob contends that the information in his motion is sufficient to indicate probable cause to believe that a personality defect exists, and therefore an exam should have been ordered. We disagree. Two pre-requisites must be met before an order may be issued under both the federal [6] and the Alaska rule: (1) that the mental condition be in controversy, and (2) that good cause exist for the examination. [7] One court has defined these two requirements as follows: in controversy  i.e. directly involved in some material element of the cause of action or a defense; and good cause  i.e. that the mental state of petitioner, even though `in controversy,' cannot adequately be evidenced without the assistance of expert medical testimony. Gasparino v. Murphy, 352 So.2d 933, 935 (Fla.Dist. App. 1977). The United States Supreme Court noted that these two requirements are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings  nor by mere relevance to the case  but require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination... . The ability of the movant to obtain the desired information by other means is also relevant. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118, 85 S.Ct. 234, 242-43, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964). Bob has not met either pre-requisite of Rule 35. It can be argued that the mental health of the parents is always an issue in child custody cases. However, the record provides no evidence other than Bob's conclusory allegations that supports the contention that Anne's mental health is in controversy. The conclusions of a spouse involved in a custody hearing are not sufficient to meet the requirement that the mental health of the party is in controversy within the meaning of Rule 35. [8] Nor did Bob present evidence showing good cause for ordering an examination. The requirement of good cause is not just a formality. [9] Rule 35 specifically requires good cause in order to provide some protection for parties subject to the rule. As noted in Gasparino, [d]iscovery of this type is of the most personal and private nature. The potentially negative effects of requiring petitioner to bare his inner self against his wishes are self-evident. Gasparino, 352 So.2d at 935. As Bob did not meet either of the pre-requisites of Rule 35, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a psychiatric examination of Anne. [10]