LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:

Child Cases | Child Abuse Reporting

Landeros was a baby who suffered repeated physical abuse. During a hospital visit, Dr. Flood acknowledged injuries consistent with abuse, but didn’t report suspected abuse to Child Protective Services (CPS) as mandated by statute.
After discharge, Landeros suffered further injuries and was subsequently diagnosed with Battered Child Syndrome. Her mother lost custody, and the guardian sued Dr. Flood for failure to identify abuse.
CA Supreme Court ruled that physicians are mandated by statute to report suspected child abuse, and failure to do so may constitute negligence.

A physician’s failure to report suspected child abuse as mandated by statute may constitute negligence, opening the door for civil liability claims, including medical malpractice.

Stritzinger was on trial for sexually abusing his daughter. The abuse had initially been reported to CPS by his daughter’s therapist.
Stritzinger was seeing the same therapist, and subsequently disclosed the abuse himself at his next session. The therapist didn’t make a second CPS report as no new info was revealed, claiming therapist-patient privilege.
Police insisted that the therapist disclose the content of Stritzinger’s sessions, and he complied. Stritzinger was ultimately convicted.
CA Supreme Court ruled that the mandated reporting requirement had already been met with the initial CPS report. As no new information had been revealed during Stritzinger’s therapy session, therapist-patient privilege still applied, and the content shouldn’t have been disclosed.

If a therapist already made a CPS report regarding suspected abuse by their patient based upon a disclosure from another source, a second report is not required for an additional direct disclosure from the patient if no new information is revealed; therapist-patient privilege applies.

While awaiting trial for sexual misconduct charges, Andring openly disclosed details of the abuse during both individual and group therapy at an alcohol and mental health treatment center.
His group therapy records were found admissible at trial, while individual therapy and intake records were excluded. Andring argued that this violated the Hughes Act, which prevents disclosure of information related to treatment.
Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that therapist-patient privilege applied to group therapy, as the involved parties were part of the treatment process. The group therapy records did not reveal new information, thus violation of therapist-patient privilege was unnecessary.

Therapist-patient privilege applies to group therapy.
The presence of third parties during group therapy does not negate privilege as they are part of the treatment process.

Deshaney was repeatedly physically abused by his father. Despite multiple visits by Winnebago County DSS, Deshaney was not removed from his father’s custody. He suffered permanent brain damage after severe abuse.
Deshaney’s mother sued DSS, arguing Substantive Due Process violations (right to bodily integrity & liberty) for failure to protect him from harm via removal from his father’s custody.
US Supreme Court ruled that Substantive Due Process was not violated by DSS’ failure to protect Deshaney from his father, as Due Process protections apply to actions by the state, not by private citizens.

There is no constitutional obligation for the state to protect minors from violence perpetrated by private citizens.