Child Abuse and Neglect Flashcards
Landeros v. Flood (1976)
Issue: Can a physician who fails to diagnose battered child syndrome be found liable for subsequent injuries to the child?
Answer: Yes
11 mo old baby brought to hospital with injuries; D/C back to mom; came back with even more serious injuries and diagnosed with BCS; mom and dad were convicted of child abuse
State appointed guardian filed suit against the doctor for failure to identify injuries due to maltreatment
Trial court dismissed case
On appeal at CA Sup. Court found in favor of baby
Finding: 1.) Vast majority of doctors would have identified the syndrome. 2.) Failure to diagnose the pt and alert authorities resulted in increased harm to the child and doctor was held accountable.
People v. Stritzinger (1983)
Issue: Can a psychotherapist be compelled to report past child abuse perpetuated by a patient, without the patient’s consent and without knowledge of continuing abuse?
Answer: No
Stritzinger abusing his daughter for 15 mo; mom found out and husband and daughter sought services with a psychologist
Daughter reported the abuse and he reported it to authorities
Husband then revealed details of abuse in his session with the therapist
Police demanded he reveal the information due to reporting statutes but he doctor asserted privilege
Over objection he testified and husband was convicted
CA Supreme court reversed-finding trial court erred in allowing the testimony
Finding: 1.) Found he already reported the incident and did not suspect any additional reportable activity so no need to violate privilege
State v. Andring (MN Supr. Court, 1984)
Issue: Group therapy rights re: child abuse admissions
Andring charged with sexual conduct against family and released on bond; voluntarily entered an alcohol treatment center where he received individual and group tx; was told that information in sessions was confidential and only staff would have access to it; he related his history of sexual conduct with young girls during intake, group, and individual sessions; prosecution moved for discovery of medical record; court denied disclosure of intake and individual therapy but allowed disclosure of group sessions
Question: Does doctor/patient or therapist/pt privilege extend to disclosures of child sexual abuse, which has already been charged
Answer: Yes. Disclosures, in this case that were made in group therapy were protected by pt/therapist privilege, where sessions were integral part of tx and diagnosis
Finding: 1.) Any interpretation that excludes group therapy from scope of doctor/pt privilege would limit effectiveness of group therapy- group therapy is effective and cost efficient 2.) Doctor/patient privilege extends to include confidential group psychotherapy sessions where such sessions are an integral and necessary part of a patient’s diagnosis and treatment 3.) Presence of third parties does not destroy privilege, because it is part of the diagnostic and therapeutic process
Kentucky v. Stincer (SCOTUS, 1987)
Issue: Protection of child witnesses
Stincer indicted with sexual assault against three children (ages 5, 7, and 8); he was excluded from a hearing to see if two were competent to testify but his lawyer was there- asked questions about birthdays and if they knew what it meant to tell the truth- not asked about case; found competent and Stincer’s attorney didn’t object; they testified to similar things during trial and he was convicted
Appealed to KY Sup. Court stating his exclusion from competency hearing of the two girls denied him due process and violated 6th amendment right to confront witnesses against him- held he did have a right to be present at the hearing because it was a “crucial phase of trial:- KY appealed to SCOTUS
Question: Does a defendant accused of SA have a right to be present at a pretrial hearing when competency of witnesses is determined?
APA brief: even if does have a right to be there, it should not be absolute in order to protect child victims from substantial trauma; scientific evidence about child victims confront their accusers is sparse and inconclusive and requires a case by case determination of effects
Answer: No. SCOTUS reversed. His rights under CC of 6th and his 14th rights under due process were not violated from his exclusion from a competency hearing.
Finding: 1.) CC’s purpose is to promote reliability in criminal trials by ensuring a defendant’s opportunity for cross examination- because questions asked during competency hearing could be repeated during testimony in open court, there was no violation of rights 2.) His rights under 14th were not violated from his exclusion (related to fairness of procedures)- neither girl was asked about substantive testimony they would give at trial- there was no evidence his presence would have been useful in ensuring a more reliable competency determination
Dupuy v. Samuels (7th Circuit, 2005)
Issue: Rights of those alleged of perpetrating child abuse/neglect
Dupuy and others were child care workers/foster parents who were indicted as perps of child abuse per IL Department of children and family services (DCFS); said DCFS’ procedures for investigating and reporting allegations deprived them of Due Process under 14th; court said DCFS procedure did not deprive due process; Dupuy et all appealed
DC concluded DCFS violated due process rights (only inculpatory information was sought, long delays in appeals, and their procedures were constitutionally inadequate; gave DCFS 60 days to develop appropriate standards
Question: What should appropriate DCFS standards be and who do they apply to?
Finding: 1.) New standards required employees to consider all evidence (incriminatory and exculpatory), have to weigh all evidence, process required some form of appeals process, and those who appealed would be entitled to a hearing
