Collaborative Process: Clarifying Intent About “Mental Health Treatment”

Florida’s divorce and paternity statutes don’t define “mental health treatment.” When they’re sharing parental responsibility, each parent retains parental consent to mental health treatment. However, when parents define “mental health treatment” and clarify and agree to the scope of “mental health treatment” for their child, they may avoid confusion and future litigation. 

Parents in collaborative practice may define by agreement “mental health treatment” and a protocol for decision making about mental health treatment. They may explain to the judge their agreement is in their child’s best interests.

Judges Should Respect Parents’ Agreements Clarifying Intent About “Mental Health Treatment” 

Judges have an independent duty to safeguard a child’s best interests, even when parents agree on how they’ll raise their child. Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Bell v. Broch, 230 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Vinson v. Vinson, 282 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).  These principles apply to parents’ agreements clarifying what they mean by “mental health treatment.”

Parents’ Agreements In Their Child’s Best Interests

Florida cases hold the judge has no free hand to disregard parents’ wishes.  Sedell v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Florida law favors settlement agreements.  By collaborative contracts, parents can agree on creative solutions even a judge might be unable to order if they didn’t agree.

Therefore, unless there’s a valid reason related to the best interest of the child or a finding the parents’ agreements were involuntary or were the product of fraud, a court should respect and uphold them.

For example, in Griffith v.Griffith, 860 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), there wasn’t enough evidence to support the trial judge’s disdaining parents’ mediation agreement. Their agreement resolved alimony, child support, and custody. Yet the court conducted post-mediation hearings to determine if the agreement was in the children’s best interest. Then, the judge concluded the agreement wasn’t in the children’s best interest. So the trial court cut the doctor-mom’s agreed-on child support obligation.  

And, in Williams v. Sapp, 255 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), a trial judge improperly modified parents’ mediation agreement for mom to have sole parental responsibility. But there was no notice or opportunity for mom to be heard. The appeals court held the trial judge must either approve the parents’ agreement as they negotiated it or, if the court can’t or won’t approve the agreement, must conduct a properly-noticed evidentiary hearing.

Best-Interests – Vinson v. Vinson

In contrast, such a hearing took place in Vinson v. Vinson, 282 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). There, a mom challenged the trial judge’s adoption of a parenting plan to which she and dad agreed. They initially agreed on equal timesharing and child support. The court approved it and entered a temporary order.

Later, instead of proceeding with dad’s deposition, the parents and their attorneys reached a new timesharing agreement. Dad would have majority time and mom would have summers, split major holidays, and have every three- or four-day weekend. Under oath before the court reporter, both parties confirmed they agreed they understood and were freely and voluntarily signing the agreement.

Mom had buyer’s remorse. Three days before the final hearing, her attorney withdrew by agreement. Mom moved to set aside the custody agreement. She alleged she’d been fearful and anxious and felt pressured and coerced when she agreed to the newly-stipulated parenting plan.

Mom Waives Her Attorney-Client Privilege 

After mom waived her attorney-client privilege, with a new attorney representing her, she and her former attorney testified about their communications by email and in person, which preceded the custody agreement. The former attorney testified her client never expressed confusion about the terms of the newly-stipulated custody agreement. Moreover, mom had pressed her attorney to make the timesharing offer for dad to have majority time, because she – a working nurse – said it was in the daughter’s best interest.

The Trial Judge Finds No Reason to Reject, So Adopts the Parents’ Agreement 

After hearing the evidence, the trial judge found the record “devoid of any evidence that would suggest the best interest of the child will not be served by the agreement that was reached by the parties.” The judge thus denied mom’s motion to set aside the agreement.

On appeal, the court rejected mom’s claim the trial judge had abdicated its job to consider the best interests of the child by adopting the parents’ timesharing agreement. 

No Abdication When Judge Allows Best Interests Evidence

In so doing, the court distinguished cases mom cited. Higgins v. Higgins, 945 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Lane v. Lane, 599 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In those cases, unlike in Vinson, before the custody orders were entered, there had been no opportunity for the parents to present  evidence of best interests and for the judge to ascertain them. A similar failure to and reversal took place in Sparks v. Sparks, 75 So. 3d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). There, the judge improperly denied a dad an evidentiary hearing on his assertions the parent’s agreements about custody and visitation weren’t in the child’s best interests.

Read more about how parents may clarify their intent when they define and reach agreements about their child’s mental health treatment. An important step is enlisting court review of parent’s custody agreements. Invite the judge, safeguarding the child, to take evidence and make findings about the child’s best interests.

The Florida collaborative process lets parents harness their power to contract and reach creative solutions. See When Clients Retain Their Power: The Collaborative Law Process.

For more information about the collaborative process, contact Sampson Collaborative Law.