People v. Wood , 447 Mich. 80 ( 1994 )

Cavanagh, C.J.

I concur with the majority that the defendant lacks standing to assert his daughter’s privilege as established by MCL 339.1610(2); MSA 18.425(1610)(2). I write separately, however, to emphasize that defendant does not have standing under the limited facts of this case.

It is a well-established rule of law that privileges should be narrowly construed. People v Love, 425 Mich 691, 700; 391 NW2d 738 (1986) (opinion of Cavanagh, J.). Their construction should be no greater than necessary to promote the interests sought to be protected in the first place. Howe v Detroit Free Press, 440 Mich 203, 226; 487 NW2d 374 (1992).

It is apparent that MCL 339.1610(2); MSA 18.425(1610X2), is intended to protect the confidential nature of the social worker-client relationship. The defendant is not asserting the privilege in this case to protect the confidentiality of his daughter’s relationship with her social worker, he is asserting it to protect himself from criminal prosecution. To allow the defendant to assert the privilege on behalf of his daughter under the facts of this case would in no way further the legislative intent underlying the privilege. I therefore agree that the defendant has no standing to assert his daughter’s privilege.