Mower v. Childrens Ctr
422 P.3d 837
Utah2018Background
- Thomas Mower sued his daughter’s therapist Nancy Baird and The Children’s Center after Baird’s treatment allegedly produced false memories/allegations that Mower sexually abused his then-four‑year‑old daughter, T.M.
- The complaint alleges Baird used improper, confirmatory questioning, failed to record sessions or keep adequate notes, and acted as both therapist and investigator; DCFS initially made a “supported” finding later changed to “unsupported.”
- Mower pleaded medical malpractice/negligence claims against Baird and The Children’s Center; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) holding therapists owe no duty to alleged abusers/nonpatient parents.
- On appeal the Utah Supreme Court considered (1) whether a treating therapist owes a traditional duty of care to a nonpatient parent when treating the parent’s minor child for alleged sexual abuse, and (2) whether a limited duty exists to avoid causing severe emotional distress.
- Applying its Jeffs duty framework, the Court held a limited traditional duty exists but is confined to affirmative acts that recklessly give rise to false memories or allegations; it also recognized a limited emotional‑distress duty in that context.
- The Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, limiting recovery to harms caused by reckless affirmative misconduct (physical harm, property damage, or severe emotional distress that manifests in objective symptoms).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a treating therapist owes a duty of reasonable care to a nonpatient parent when treating the parent’s minor child for alleged sexual abuse | Mower: therapist owes duty to avoid affirmative acts that create false memories/accusations harming parent | Defendants: no duty to nonpatient alleged abusers; imposing duty would chill treatment and undermine confidentiality | Court: Yes—limited traditional duty exists for affirmative acts that recklessly give rise to false memories or allegations |
| Standard/scope of duty (negligence vs. recklessness) | Mower: traditional negligence duty (reasonable care) supports recovery | Defendants: broad negligence duty would chill therapy; policy counsels against liability | Court: duty limited by policy to refraining from recklessly (not merely negligently) causing false memories/accusations |
| Whether therapist’s duty includes liability for causing severe emotional distress to nonpatient parent | Mower: emotional harm from false allegations is compensable | Defendants: emotional‑distress recovery should be limited by zone‑of‑danger rule; no duty to bystanders | Court: Adopted a narrow emotional‑distress duty—therapists owe to parents a duty to refrain from recklessly causing severe emotional distress via creating false memories/allegations, subject to strict proof (objective severe symptoms) |
| Procedural consequence: sufficiency of complaint after remand | Mower: existing malpractice complaint can support relief for emotional distress | Defendants: plaintiff must plead separate emotional‑distress cause | Court: Remanded; left to district court whether Mower must plead negligent infliction of emotional distress separately and whether amendment is permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (framework for determining duty and five‑factor test)
- Sea Ray Boats, Inc. v. Hansen, 830 P.2d 236 (Utah 1992) (adoption of zone‑of‑danger rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress)
- Johnson v. Rogers, 763 P.2d 771 (Utah 1988) (recognition of negligent infliction of emotional distress and adoption of zone‑of‑danger approach)
- Roberts v. Salmi, 866 N.W.2d 460 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (therapist may have a limited duty to parents to avoid treatment that gives rise to false memories)
- Sawyer v. Midelfort, 595 N.W.2d 423 (Wis. 1999) (therapist liability for damages from patient’s false memories of abuse)