Whether the trial court exceeded its emergency jurisdiction by ordering a psychological evaluation without allegations of child abuse and potentially violating constitutional protections

This case was initiated by Respondent solely based on the fact that Petitioner filed a court case (US Supreme Court, Givey v DOJ, 23-7063) claiming he is an attacked whistleblower and demanding Biden ’s DOJ to take a criminal complaint, which they refused to do. The trial court only has emergency jurisdiction to issue an emergency custody order in the event of abuse, mistreatment or an immin ent, threat of physical harm to the children. With no allegations of abuse, Respondent simply testified, “If he keeps filing these cases, that makes me very wary that he is going to have another psychotic break. ”, falsely claiming that Petitioner had a psychotic break 11 years ago, while Petitioner maintains that he was illegally drugged that night and wants a criminal investigation into the events that occurred. In an order that clearly violated Pennsylvania Law and the United States Constitution, the trial court removed Petitioner ’s custody rights and ordered him to undergo a psychological evaluation, with a doctor chosen by Respondent. 1) Did the trial court have emergency jurisdiction to enter an emergency custody order? 2) Can the trial court order Petitioner to divulge privileged communications that are protected by the psychiatrist/ psychologist patient privilege? 3) Does the trial court ’s order to undergo a psychological evaluation violate the Pa.R.C.P. 1915.8, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5944 and the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution? 4) Was the Superior Court/Pa Supreme Court ’s per curiam orders valid?