Court Opinion

ID: 9697709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:27:26.196958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:34.767823
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 23. (dissenting). Although I agree with much that the Majority has written, I believe that the trial court did erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing the father's request for an updated psychological evaluation. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 24. First, although the father's affidavit, which is quoted in paragraph 8 of the Majority Opinion, talks of "factual disputes," all of the subparts implicate, to some degree or another, psychological stresses in the boy's life and his ability to cope with those stresses. Second, the initial evaluation was four years old; the boy was eleven and one-half years old when the trial court entered its written order denying the father's request for the updated evaluation. The intervening years are times of stress and turmoil even for children in relatively non-stressful environments. Indeed, even the trial court recognized that the old psychological evaluation was "somewhat stale."
¶ 25. It is true, as the Majority opines, that the trial courts are vested with the initial discretionary determination of contested placement issues. But discretion can only be exercised against a full exposition of the relevant facts. In my view, a four-year-old psychological evaluation of an eleven-year-old child is less than the required full exposition. Simply put, the father was *346entitled to have the trial court consider all material information. The trial court decided to consider only some of that information, and I would reverse for that reason.