About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

9 ABA Juv. & Child Welfare L. Rep. 1 (1990-1991)

handle is hein.journals/chilawpt9 and id is 1 raw text is: ABA JUVEN La& CfHILDWELFAR VNO1ac(1Re9orter VOL. 9, NO. 1 March 1990 CHILD WELFARE Abuse, Liability, Child Welfare Agency Two Federal Appellate Courts Address Social Worker Immunity From Damages Arising Out Of Child Abuse Allegations. Lux v. Hansen, 886 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir. 1989) and Achterhof v. Selvaggio, 886 F.2d 826 (6th Cir. 1989). In decisions rendered ten days apart, two federal appellate courts have further defined the degree of immunity from damages actions which child welfare agency workers are entitled to where an unlawful governmental intrusion into familial integrity is alleged. In the Lux case, a child, through her father, filed a civil rights action against a social worker and a doctor who were employed by a healthcare provider which the child had been referred to by the state child welfare agency. The initial referral had been made out of concern that the child had been sexually abused. After a series of counselling sessions, the child implicated her father as the abuser. This accusation was recanted at various times, and no physical evidence of abuse was found. A petition was nevertheless filed in juvenile court due to the suspicion of abuse. This petition was later dismissed after the father, the mother and the child's guar- dian ad litem agreed to a family therapy and visitation plan. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court on the basis of the defendants' qualified immunity from suit. The plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed that the father possessed a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody and control of his children. This interest, however, did not transcend the responsibility to protect a child from suspected abuse. The court held that private healtheare providers who acted jointly with a government agency would be entitled to a qualified immunity from damages liability arising out of any al- leged interference with the right to familial integrity. In this case, though the evidence of paternal sexual abuse was conflicting, it did give rise to a reasonable suspicion. No malice or improper motive could be found on the part of the defen- dants, and the trial court's grant of sum- mary judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff in Lux had also advanced pendent state tort law negligence claims which the trial court had rejected on the basis of the immunity conferred by the state's child abuse reporting statutes. The appellate court again affirmed, holding that the private healthcare providers were mandatory reporters, and tiat the reports were tendered in good faith upon the reporters' reasonable suspicion of abuse. The court further ruled that the statutory grant of immunity extended to the reporters' actions in assisting the state agency with its investigation, and was not limited merely to the reporting of the suspected abuse itself. In Achterhol the issue of absolute quasi-prosecutorial immunity was raised. The complained of governmental inter- ference with familial integrity in this case was the opening of a case file, the inves- tigation of alleged physical abuse per- petrated by the minor victim's father, and the placement and maintenance of the father's name on the state's central child abuse registry. This record was later ex- punged through an administrative proceeding. The child's father and mother claimed that these actions had deprived them of due process, equal protection and freedom of association. The trial court dis- missed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. The basis for part of the trial court's dis- missal was its belief that the defendant agency workers were entitled to the type of absolute immunity accorded to prosecutors. The court noted that it pre- viously had agreed that such immunity would be accorded to agency workers who in;tiate legal proceedings against those suspected of child abuse. A distinc- tion, however, had previously been drawn between prosecutorial functions of the worker and those which were merely ad- ministrative or investigatory. The court recognized that the actions of the agency worker could have led to the prosecution of a child abuse action. In this case, how- ever, the worker's actions were deemed to be merely investigative and administra- tive; indeed, the worker was statutorily re- quired to take the action which he did. Thus, the defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings in the trial court. Abuse, Liability, Reporting Statute Damages Immunity Conferred By Child Abuse Reporting Statute Did Not Extend To Investigatory Acts. Loeblich v. City of Davis, -Cal. App.3d....., 262 Cal. Rptr. 397(1989). The parents of two children filed a damages action against various private and public childcare employees as a result of actions taken by these defendants in response to suspected child abuse. Among the parents' claims were those for false imprisonment, libel, slander and the intentional infliction of emotional dis- tress. The parents' complaints centered continued on next page HIGHLIGHTS Child Welfare 1 Rights of Children and Families 7 Juvenile Justice 8 Other Cases of Interest 10 Legal Analysis 11 Supreme Court News Parental Custody under Court Supervision 15 Supplemental Social Security Program 16 American Bar Association

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most