WHITNEY (FMCE13-003945): MOTHER'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S VERIFIED MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Filing# 241865242 E-Filed 02/16/2026 10:52:48 PM)

 Filing# 241865242 E-Filed 02/16/2026 10:52:48 PM 

Guidry vs Ioia FMCE: 13-003945 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF: CASE NO: FMCE-13-003945 FAMILY DIVISION (37) 

WHITNEY GUIDRY, 

Petitioner/Mother, 

V 

MICHAEL IOIA, 

Respondent/Father. 

MOTHER'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO GUARDIAN AD LITEM'S VERIFIED MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

COMES NOW the Petitioner/Mother,WHITNEY GUIDRY, pro se, and files this Response and Objectionto the Guardian ad Litem's Verified Motion seekingto compel a psychological evaluation of Mother, and states as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. The relief requestedby the Guardian ad Litem seeks to compel an invasive psychological examination of Mother without satisfyingthe mandatory legalrequirementsunder Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.360. The motion fails to establish that Mother's mental condition is "in controversy,"fails to demonstrate good cause, and fails to providethe specificparameters requiredby law. Accordingly,the motion must be denied. 

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD 

2. Pursuant to Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.360(a),a court may order a party to submit to a psychologicalexamination only if. 

a. The party'smental condition is in controversy; and 

b. Good cause is shown for the examination. 

c. The order must specifythe time, place,manner, conditions, and scope of the 

examination. 

3. Florida appellatecourts have consistentlyheld that psychologicalevaluations in custody matters constitute extraordinaryrelief and are not to be ordered routinelyor based on mere allegations,suspicions,or generalizedconcerns. See Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 2013). 

Page 1 of 6 

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 02/16/2026 10:52:47 PM.****

Guidry vs Ioia FMCE: 13-003945 III. NO MENTAL CONDITION IS '.-'IN CONTROVERSYTGG 

4. Although the Guardian ad Litem has referenced diagnosticterminologysuch as 'b*olar disorder,'or 'borderline personalitydisorder,'Mother has never been diagnosedwith any such condition,has never been ordered to undergo a psychologicalevaluation,and no competent medical evidence has been presentedto this Court placingMother's mental condition in controversy. Opinion, speculation,or the use of diagnosticlabels by a non medical professionaldoes not satisfythe requirementsof Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.360. 

5. Mother affirmativelystates as follows: 

Mother has never been diagnosedwith any mental disorder; 

. Mother is not under psychiatricor psychologicaltreatment; 

. No court has ever found Mother to be psychologicallyunfit. 

6. The Guardian ad Litem has not identified any licensed mental health professionalwho has evaluated Mother and concluded that a psychologicalevaluation is necessary. The motion relies solelyon the GAL's layobservations and subjectivecharacterizations, which do not constitute competent medical evidence sufficient to placeMother's mental condition "in controversy"under Florida law. Allegations,inferences,or disagreements regardingparentingdecisions do not placea party'smental health "in controversy" for purposes ofRule 12.360. 

IV. NO GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED 

7. The Motion fails to articulate specificfacts demonstratinga nexus between any alleged mental condition and harm to the minor child. Florida courts have consistentlyheld that good cause under Rule 12.360 requiresmore than speculation,disagreementwith a parent'sdecisions,or dissatisfaction with a parent'sconduct. Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 2013). 

8. Absent competent medical evidence that Mother's psychologicalcondition is genuinelyat issue and materiallyrelevant to the child's best interests,good cause does not exist. Similar to the holdingin Manubens v. Manubens, 198 So. 3d 1072 (Fla.5th DCA 2016), the Motion lacks factual findingsplacingMother's mental condition 'in controversy'and fails to specifythe nature, scope, duration,type of testing,examiner qualifications,or other parameters requiredunder Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.360(a)(1)(B). 

9. The Guardian ad Litem's motion relies on layobservations,parentingdisagreements,and subjectiveinterpretationsrather than competent medical evidence. Florida law is clear that layopinion,even from a Guardian ad Litem, cannot establish that a party'smental condition is "in controversy"under Rule 12.360. Observations made in a Guardian ad Litem capacitydo not constitute a psychologicaldiagnosis,and unverified 

characterizations do not satisfythe evidentiarystandard requiredfor compelled evaluation. 

10. Mother's involvement of law enforcement and the Department of Children and Families on January 1, 2026, occurred pursuant to mandatory reportingrequirementsunder Florida Statutes Section 39.201 and upon the express advice of respondinglaw enforcement officers and child protectionpersonnel.These actions reflect appropriatecompliance with statutory obligationsand professionalguidance,not evidence of mental health instability. The fact that a parent reports suspectedchild abuse to authorities and follows their 

Page 2 of 6

Guidry vs Ioia FMCE: 13-003945 

recommendations does not placethat parent'smental condition "in controversy"under Rule 12.360. 

11. The Guardian ad Litem's characterization of Mother's protectiveactions as evidence of "failingmental health" is directlycontradicted by subsequentevents. The GAL's Motion cites the New Year's Eve 2025 incident as evidence of Mother's allegedinstability. However, the Guardian ad Litem's own report later filed with this Court states that "the DCF and the GAL suspect sipswere taken,"therebyconsistent with Mother's report that the minor child did consume alcohol. Additionally,at the January 13, 2026 Case Management Conference, Respondent testified under oath that the minor child did not consume alcohol and he did not provideany. The child's subsequentdisclosure to the GAL directlycontradicted Respondent's sworn testimony and validated Mother's report. A parent who accuratelyreports child safetyconcerns and is subsequentlyproven correct has not demonstrated mental instability, she has demonstrated appropriateprotective behavior. 

12. The Guardian ad Litem's reliance on unverified hearsayand speculation,rather than competent medical evidence or independent professionalassessment, underscores that the Motion lacks a sufficient factual basis to establish that Mother's mental condition is "in controversy"or that good cause exists as requiredunder Rule 12.360. The suggestionthat Mother's lawful report of suspectedchild endangerment pursuant to Florida's child protectionreportingframework under Section 39.201 constitutes evidence of mental health impairment is both factuallyunsupported and legallyinsufficient to justifya compelled psychologicalexamination. 

13. Although the Guardian ad Litem's Motion is verified pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.080, verification does not substitute for thorough,current investigationor transform unverified allegationsinto competent evidence. The Guardian ad Litem has not conducted a substantive interview with Mother since July2025, more than six months priorto filingthis Motion. The GAL has not sought clarification regardingevents occurringafter July2025, has not consulted with Mother's physicians, and has not attemptedto verifyallegationsbefore includingthem in the Motion. Mother has remained willingto cooperate with appropriateinquiry.The lack ofrecent, direct investigationraises substantial concern that the requestedevaluation is based on outdated, incomplete,and unverified information rather than current, competent evidence as requiredunder Rule 12.360 and in Wade v. Wade 124 So. 3d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 2013). 

V. MOTION IS PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE UNDER RULE 12.360 

14. Even if the threshold requirementswere met (which they are not),the motion and any resultingorder must strictlycomply with Rule 12.360(a)(1)(B)by specifying: The time ofthe examination; 

The place of the examination; 

The manner, conditions,and scope of the examination; 

The type of testingto be conducted; 

The duration ofthe examination; and 

The identityand qualificationsof the examiner. 

15. Florida appellatecourts have repeatedlyquashed psychologicalevaluation orders that are open-ended or grant discretion to the evaluator to determine the scope or testing,finding such orders to be a departurefrom the essential requirementsof law and a miscarriageof 

Page 3 of 6

Guidry vs Ioia FMCE: 13-003945 

justice.As emphasized in King v. Escobar, 350 So. 3d 857 (Fla.4th DCA 2022), orders compellingpsychologicalevaluations without strict compliance with Rule 12.360 constitute a departurefrom the essential requirementsof law and create irreparableharm that cannot be remedied on appeal.See Smart v. Bock, 220 So. 3d 1196 (Fla.4th DCA 2017);Manubens v. Manubens, 198 So. 3d 1072 (Fla.5th DCA 2016);King v.Escobar, 4D22-1070 (Fla.4th DCA 2022). 

16. The Guardian ad Litem's Motion fails to comply with the mandatory requirementsof Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.360(a)(1)(B),which requirethe Motion to specifythe time, place, manner, conditions,scope, type oftesting,duration,and identityofthe examiner. Florida appellatecourts have consistentlyheld that orders lackingthese specificparameters constitute a departurefrom the essential requirementsof law. See Ludwigsen v. Ludwigsen, 313 So. 3d 709 (Fla.2d DCA 2020) (orderswithout proper parameters are a departurefrom law);Oldham v. Greene, 263 So. 3d 807 (Fla.1st DCA 2018) (open ended evaluation orders are improperwhen lackingspecificdirectives);Maddox v. Bullard, 141 So. 3d 1264 (Fla.5th DCA 2014) (aparty may seek a new, properlylimited order after an initial invalid order).Here, the Motion's failure to set clear boundaries or provide specificdirectives for the requestedpsychologicalevaluation renders it procedurallydefective,and any order entered on its basis would be legallyinfirm and subjectto challenge. 

VI. DUE PROCESS AND PRIVACY CONCERNS 

17. A compelled psychologicalexamination implicatessignificantprivacy and due process interests. Courts must applyRule 12.360 narrowly and cautiouslyto prevent irreparable harm, See Rileyv. Riley,915 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla.3d DCA 2005).The Guardian ad Litem's request, as pled,constitutes an improper,overlybroad investigatoryrather than a legallysupportedrequest for relief. 

18. Compelling a psychologicalevaluation without the requiredevidentiaryshowing would improperlyshift the burden to Mother to disprovea condition that has not been legallyor medicallyestablished. 

VII. MOTHER IS INDIGENT AND CANNOT AFFORD EVALUATIONS 

19. Mother is currentlyindigentand lacks the financial abilityto pay for the extensive psychological,psychiatric,and substance abuse evaluations requestedby Father. This financial incapacityis supportedby Mother's current income, resources, and inabilityto meet basic livingobligations. 

20. The Motion requests three separate evaluations (psychological,psychiatric,and substance abuse),the combined cost of which is likelyto exceed $10,000, based on customary fees charged for such expert evaluations in custodyproceedings. 

21. Florida courts generallyconsider the parties'financial abilityto pay when allocating costs in familylaw matters. Under Section 61.125, Florida Statutes,when a party is found indigentpursuant to Section 57.082, Florida Statutes,courts must consider whether that 

Page 4 of 6

Guidry vs Ioia FMCE: 13-003945 

party can afford the costs of services such as parentingcoordination or evaluations and may requirethe non-indigentparty to bear those costs or consent to pay all costs. 22. Even in the absence of a specificstatutory allocation for psychologicalevaluations, Florida courts commonly allocate the cost of child custody,parentingtime, and mental health evaluations based on the relative financial circumstances of the parties,includinga party'sindigencyand abilityto pay. Courts have discretion to order a non-indigentparty to pay or contribute more toward the cost of experts and evaluations when necessary to prevent a financiallydisadvantagedparent from beingunable to participatemeaningfully in the proceedings. 

23. Because Father is the moving party seekingto impose these evaluations,and because Mother lacks financial resources to pay them, Mother respectfullyrequests that the Court either: 

a. Order Father to pay all costs associated with any ordered evaluations,based on his abilityto pay relative to Mother's indigency;or 

b. Require the partiesto share costs in a proportionthat reflects their respective financial abilities,with Mother's share limited or waived due to indigency. 24. Requiring Mother to personallyfund multiplecostlyevaluations as a condition of preservingher parentalrightswould be inequitableand would effectivelypenalizeher for her lack of financial means, contrary to principlesof fairness and due process. A parent's inabilityto pay should not be a basis for restrictingtimesharing,parentingresponsibility, or decision-makingauthoritywithout clear statutory support and appropriatejudicial findings. 

25. Mother should not be separatedfrom her child,have her timesharingrestricted,or be subjectedto punitiveconditions solelybecause she lacks the financial abilityto pay for evaluations that Father has requested. 

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Mother,respectfullyrequests that this Honorable Court: 

a. DENY the Guardian ad Litem's Verified Motion for PsychologicalEvaluation in its entiretyfor failure to establish that the Mother's mental condition is "in controversy.. or that good cause exists;or 

b. If the Court orders evaluation, ORDER: 

1. ONE comprehensive psychologicalevaluation (notthree separate 

evaluations); 

2. Father pay costs as moving party, 

3. Reasonable visitation with the minor child while pending evaluation (weekly or bi-weekly at minimum) 

4. Follow-up hearingbe scheduled within thirty(30)days of evaluation 

completion to review findings; 

5. If substance abuse evaluation is ordered,evaluator be instructed that Mother's cannabis use is legal,prescribed,and under physiciansupervision,and that testingpositivefor prescribedmedication is not evidence of abuse; and to be paid for by the father as they are burden to proving. 

6. February 19, 2026 hearing on be CONTINUED pending completion of evaluation. 

c. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems justand proper. 

Page 5 of 6

Guidry vs Ioia FMCE: 13-003945 

NOTICE OF FILING 

COMES NOW the Petitioner,WHITNEY GUIDRY, pro se, and hereby givesnotice that the Mother's Response and Objectionto GAL's PsychologicalEvaluation has been filed with the Clerk of Court usingthe Florida Courts' E-FilingPortal on 16?thday of February 2026, and a true and correct copy has been served on all partiesof record in accordance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.526. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16? day of February 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoingwas filed with the Clerk of Court using the Florida Courts' E-FilingPortal,which will deliver electronic copiesof said filingpursuant to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.526 to the designatedemail address for all counsel of record. 

CERTIFICATION REGARDING USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that generativeartificial intelligencewas used to prepare this Mother's Response and Objection to Guardian ad Litem's Verified Motion for Psychological Evaluation. The undersigned has independentlyreviewed and verified the accuracy of every citation to the law and/or the record,and the accuracy of any language drafted by generativeartificial intelligence,includingquotations,citations,paraphrasedassertions,facts,and legalanalysis.The undersigned accepts full responsibilityfor the contents ofthis filing. 

Respectfullysubmitted, 

bf--- 

Whitney Guidry 

Pro Se 

10391 SW 49m PL 

Cooper City,FL 33328 

954.655.0355 

Whitney.Miller624@gmail.com 

Page 6 of 6