Pitz v. Gonzalez

Background

Christopher Pitz moved to require Inessa Gonzalez to make the parties’ children available for a mental examination by Pitz’s retained expert, Dr. Peter Favaro. The dispute arose in a Hague Convention custody case involving Pitz’s petition concerning the children’s return to Germany.

Gonzalez’s amended answer alleged that the children had suffered verbal and physical abuse, that one child had been left alone with Pitz, and that both children had expressed fear of Pitz. Those allegations supported Gonzalez’s defense that returning the children to Germany would expose them to a serious risk of physical or psychological harm.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a court to order a physical or mental examination when there is good cause and the person’s condition is in dispute. The court found good cause because Gonzalez had put the children’s mental condition at issue through the abuse allegations and serious-risk defense.

The court stated that an examination by a qualified psychologist, including observing the children interact with Pitz, could help assess whether abusive events occurred, the nature of any such conduct, and its effect on the children. Those issues could inform the court’s later assessment of the risk of harm if the children were returned to Pitz’s custody in Germany.

The court rejected Gonzalez’s argument that testimony from an expert who did not examine the children, together with existing text messages, emails, and recordings, made an examination unnecessary. It also found that Gonzalez had not shown that the examination would impose an undue burden. The court concluded that asking the children about disputed traumatic experiences was a necessary burden under the circumstances. It further found that one supervised session involving contact between Pitz and the children would not create enough burden to outweigh the examination’s relevance, particularly because a state-court temporary restraining order already allowed weekly supervised contact.

Order

The court granted the motion for a mental examination and ordered Gonzalez to make the children available for examination by Dr. Favaro consistent with Pitz’s proposal. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the time and place of the examination and the deadline for Dr. Favaro’s report, then file either a stipulation or a joint statement of their positions by noon on July 22, 2025. The court expected the examination to occur by July 28, 2025, unless the parties agreed to a later date or compelling reasons prevented it.

The court stated that Gonzalez’s agreement to, or proposal of, an examination date would not waive her objections to the order or her ability to appeal it. The order did not resolve whether Pitz committed any alleged abuse or any other merits question concerning the underlying petition.