Recent Court Ruling Related Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse

By Federico C Grosso, DDS, PhD, MFT, BCFE
(March 2014)

The information presented in this article stems from Dr. Grosso’s experience as an expert witness in malpractice and disciplinary cases. This article is not intended as legal advice. It is intended for educational purposes only. It is not to be copied, distributed, or duplicated without the author’s written consent.

Under statute, §11172 of the California Penal Code, immunity from civil or criminal liability is qualified and mandated reporters of child abuse are not protected if it can be proven that the report was known to be false, or made with reckless disregard. However, in 2013, a California Appeals Court ruling, Cuff vs. Grossmont High School District, set a new standard for defining immunity as it applies to mandated reporting. The court ruled that mandated reporters of child abuse are not immune from lawsuits if they fail to comply with all the legal requirements specified in §11164-11174.03 of the California Penal Code.

In the Cuff vs Grossmont High case, the legally mandated child abuse reporter, a school counselor, was employed by a San Diego school district. While providing treatment to two male students (brothers), the school counselor was informed that the mother of these students was verbally and physically abusive. The school counselor made a child abuse report, and later consulted with child welfare services, school officials, and the boys’ father regarding the boys’ well-being. One of the professionals, with whom the school counselor consulted, suggested that the counselor provide the boys’ father with a copy of the child abuse report, which she did. In turn, the father used it as an exhibit in court to obtain sole custody of the two boys. While the California Superior Court rejected the mother’s initial legal action against the school counselor, the mother later appealed to the California Appellate Court, which ruled in the mother’s favor.

In the mother’s action against the school counselor, the mother claimed that the school counselor failed to follow legal protocol by providing the child abuse report to the boys’ father. Indeed, according to law, the child abuse report form is considered a confidential document, and cannot be released to any party other than those legally identified, and, in this case, without the mother’s authorization. The Appeals Court ruled the school counselor did not merit immunity from a lawsuit due to the steps taken after she made the mandated report. It now appears that the mother of the boys’ can pursue three possible legal claims against the school counselor: (a) breach of confidentiality; (b) failure to comply with the legal steps established by the California child abuse law, and (c) emotional injury.

In conclusion, to ensure immunity, it is critical that mandated reporters fully understand and appropriately apply all pertinent legal requirements.

For details regarding the court case, visit the following website: www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D062278.PDF

To check for additional court action in this case, visit the following website: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/index.html.

To review the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, visit the following website:

www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=11001-12000&file=11164-11174.3.

E-mail Dr. Grosso regarding this article at fcgt@fgrosso.com.