CS/HB 901 amends Florida Statutes section 61.122, which governs court-appointed psychologists who make parenting plan recommendations in dissolution of marriage, domestic violence, and paternity cases involving child-parent relationships and time-sharing. The bill requires a person who wants to file an administrative complaint against such a psychologist to first move to disqualify the psychologist through the presiding judge, and it bars anonymous complaints. The complainant must include identifying information in the complaint.
The bill also revises the process for challenging a psychologist’s appointment by directing a parent who seeks disqualification to petition the judge in the underlying family-law case for an alternative psychologist. If the parent shows good cause, the court must appoint another psychologist and decide who pays the associated court costs and attorney’s fees. In addition, the bill updates the fee-shifting rules for supplemental legal actions against a court-appointed psychologist, including civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings, when those actions arise from the psychologist’s participation in the family-law matter.
Impact
The bill narrows and formalizes the path for complaints and challenges against court-appointed psychologists in family cases, making disqualification a prerequisite to administrative complaints and requiring complainants to identify themselves. It also expands and clarifies cost- and fee-allocation provisions, potentially shifting financial responsibility to the complainant or, if the psychologist is found liable in civil court, to the psychologist. The practical effect is to add procedural protections for court-appointed psychologists and to discourage or screen out complaints that are not first raised in the underlying case.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and moved through the House and Senate with strong margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes in later stages. The vote history suggests general agreement that the measure addresses a procedural fairness issue for court-appointed psychologists and the family-law process. The limited opposition indicates some concern remained, but overall sentiment was favorable.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on filing administrative complaints before seeking disqualification, which may be viewed as limiting access to oversight or complaint mechanisms. Another likely concern is the fee-shifting structure, which can expose complainants to significant costs and attorney’s fees if the psychologist is not found liable. Supporters appear to favor these provisions as safeguards against premature or retaliatory complaints and as a way to protect psychologists acting in good faith, while opponents may see them as creating barriers for parents seeking to challenge a psychologist’s conduct or recommendation.