Jane Doe I & II; And John Doe... v. Shaunice Warr
566 P.3d 342
Ariz. Ct. App.2025Background
- Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, and John Doe (minors) suffered sexual abuse by their father over several years; their mother was convicted for failing to protect them.
- Shaunice Warr, fellow church member, Sunday school teacher, occasional babysitter, and colleague of the father, was sued for failing to report suspected abuse.
- The Does asserted claims including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and emotional distress, arguing Warr had a duty to report under Arizona’s mandatory reporter statute (A.R.S. § 13-3620(A)) or common law.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Warr, finding no statutory or common law duty owed by her given her non-professional role.
- The Does appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, challenging the interpretation of who is covered as a "mandatory reporter" under § 13-3620(A)(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Common law duty to report abuse | Warr had a special relationship (Sunday school teacher) creating a duty to report | No special relationship recognized under Arizona law for Sunday school teachers | No common law duty found; affirmed lower court on this ground |
| Statutory duty under A.R.S. § 13-3620(A)(5) | "Any other person who has responsibility for the care..." includes Warr as teacher/babysitter | Statute only covers professionals, not casual or informal caregivers | Statute not limited to professionals; remanded for factual determination whether Warr had "responsibility" for care |
| Emotional distress claims & duty | Claims don't require a duty; failure to act suffices | A legal duty is required for negligence/emotional distress | Dependent on statutory duty; remanded for reconsideration |
| Scope of "care" under § 13-3620(A)(5) | Broad inclusion of those with any responsibility for child care | Should apply only to persons in professional caregiving roles | Duty not limited to professionals; rejected narrow reading |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Church of Diocese of Phoenix, 255 Ariz. 483 (App. 2023) (summary judgment review and factual inference standards)
- Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix, 251 Ariz. 370 (2021) (scope of special relationships and affirmative duties)
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (establishing duty through special relationships)
- LaFrentz v. Gallagher, 105 Ariz. 255 (1969) (in loco parentis for school personnel)
- Ford v. Revlon, Inc., 153 Ariz. 38 (1987) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Rodriguez v. Fox News Network, L.L.C., 238 Ariz. 36 (App. 2015) (negligent infliction of emotional distress elements)