Referee Carol Goldstein
Father moved to add the name of the children's therapist to his witness list. The attorney for one child objected citing therapist-client privilege. Father also sought to add the name of an Administration for Children's Services supervisor, to which none of the attorneys objected, thus the court granted the request. Father argued the testimony of the therapist would be material and necessary for a custody determination, as he was seeking to modify the parties' agreement to grant him sole legal and physical custody of the children. The court found that unlike a parent, the child takes no steps which could be construed as a waiver of the therapist-client privilege, noting it was the parents engaged in custody litigation thereby putting their mental condition at issue, not the children. It stated absent a critical and pressing need for a child's confidences to be revealed, finding no such circumstances were presented, the therapist-client privilege should not be voided. As the court already heard testimony on the issue of parental interference from the court-appointed forensic psychologist, the father's vehicle to refute such opinion was to engage a psychologist to conduct a peer review. The motion to add the therapists's name to the witness list was denied.
