DocketNumber: No. CV97 0575413
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 12686, 23 Conn. L. Rptr. 176
Judges: WAGNER, J.
Filed Date: 10/27/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that Defendant enjoys immunity provided to mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse pursuant to General Statutes §
General Statutes §
Any mandated reporter, as defined in section
17a-101 , who in his professional capacity has reasonable cause to suspect or believe that any child under the age of eighteen years is in danger of being abused or has had nonaccidental physical injury, or injury which is at variance with the history given of such injury, inflicted upon him by a person responsible for such child's health, CT Page 12688 welfare or care or by a person given access to such child by such responsible person, or has been neglected, as defined in section46b-120 , shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with the provisions of sections17a-101b to17a-101d , inclusive. Any person required to report under the provisions of this section who fails to make such report shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars.
General Statutes §
(a) An oral report shall be made by a mandated reporter within twenty-four hours of suspecting or believing that a child has been abused or neglected by telephone or in person to the Commissioner of Children and Families or a law enforcement agency.
General Statutes §
(a) Upon receiving a report of child abuse as provided in section
17a-101b , the Commissioner of Children and Families, or his designee, shall cause the report to be classified and evaluated immediately. If the report contains sufficient information to warrant an investigation, the commissioner shall make his best efforts to commence an investigation of a report concerning an imminent risk of physical harm to a child or other emergency within two hours of receipt of the report and commence all other reports within seventy-two hours of receipt of the report. The department shall complete any such investigation within thirty calendar days of receipt of the report.
General Statutes §
It is not disputed that Defendant, as a practicing psychologist, was a mandated reporter under the statute. Plaintiff contends, however, that whether Defendant had CT Page 12689 "reasonable cause" to suspect or believe that a child was being abused has become a matter of fact for a jury to determine, because Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit from Plaintiff's psychiatrist Dr. Kenneth M. Selig offering the opinion that Defendant did not have such reasonable cause.
In his affidavit, Dr. Selig states that he has reviewed the affidavit and deposition transcript of Dr. Kagel and
That it is my professional opinion as a mandated reporter that Dr. Kagel was not required to report her telephone conversation with Ms. Louise Morales to the Department of Children and Family in that a reasonable basis did not exist based upon the single phone conversation between Louise Morales and Dr. Kagel for suspecting sexual abuse.
In the 1965 debate in the Connecticut State Senate Sen. Schaffer explained the purpose of this legislation was to CT Page 12690 "encourage people who see these cases of abuse to bring them to the attention of both the welfare authority and the police and the situation can be verified. State Senate Proceedings 1965 Feb. Special Session, Vol. II, part. 1, June 2, 1965, p. 1908.
If the legislative policy is to encourage prompt reports of suspected child abuse and to immunize mandated reporters form civil liability if they make such reports in good faith, it is inevitable that some mistakes will be made by reporting some abuses that in fact did not exist. In Meehan v. Yale New HavenHospital, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. 320418 (March 12, 1996, Hartmere, J.), 16 CONN. L. RPTR. 437, the court recognized that some erroneous reports would be made but nevertheless found that the "legislature chose to promote the greater social benefit which results from reporting all suspected cases of child abuse to the appropriate authorities."
In his complaint, Plaintiff raises the question of good faith on the part of Defendant in making the report, but in his arguments does not challenge Defendant's version of circumstances leading to his report, his prior call from the informant, or his conversations with the DCF in which he sought guidance as to his duty to file a report. This court is mindful as was Judge Hartmere in the Meehan case of the effect that an incorrect report of abuse can have on an alleged perpetrator, especially where that person is a family member; however, overriding the immunity of a mandated reporter would not correct such a situation and might make it impossible to obtain the cooperation of mandated reporters in accomplishing the legislative purpose of encouraging prompt reports of child abuse. See Zamstein v.Marvasti, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at New Britain, Docket No. 4571182 (November 19, 1994, Handy, J.), 13 CONN. L. RPTR. 159, 161.
With these considerations in mind, the mere fact that one medical provider may disagree with another as to what constitutes "reasonable cause" does not constitute a question of material fact requiring resolution by a trial which might lead to the by-passing of Defendant's statutory immunity, because in this case Defendant has established some basis of her reasonable cause and no factual basis for challenging her good faith in making the report has been set forth.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. CT Page 12691
Jerry Wagner Judge Trial Referee