San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. A.L.
210 Cal. App. 4th 1457
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Minors M.L. (born Sept. 2008) and E.L. (born Dec. 2005) came to the department’s attention for alleged maternal mental illness and neglect in Apr. 2011.
- Mother was involuntarily hospitalized in Jan. 2011 and reportedly noncompliant with medications; father previously had custody.
- Department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition on Apr. 20, 2011 alleging mental illness and domestic violence by both parents.
- Minors were detained Apr. 21, 2011; later hearings sought to admit mother’s psychiatric records to support jurisdiction.
- Court allowed disclosure and admission of sealed psychiatric records, leading to findings against mother and custody shift to father; mother appealing the order to disclose records.
- Appellate court reversed, holding no proper in-camera review and improper disclosure/admission of confidential psych records; remanded for new jurisdictional hearing with exclusion of confidential materials.]
- Note: The reversal centers on psychotherapist-patient privilege and the lack of proper in-camera review and statutory applicability for disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether psychotherapist-patient records could be disclosed to the department | Mother: records not disclosable or admissible without in-camera review | Department: disclosures permitted under 5328(f)/(l) for administration of justice and child welfare | Disclosures improper; records neither disclosable nor admissible without in-camera review. |
| Whether the trial court properly ordered the records’ disclosure without in-camera examination | Waiver and disclosure were not properly established; no in-camera review | Department needed the records to meet burden of proof | Court erred; required in-camera review and separate determination of privilege applicability. |
| Whether Mother waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by contesting the petition | Denial of allegations does not tender mental state; no waiver | Department contends tender occurred by disclosures and participation | Waiver not shown; privilege remained and should have protected content. |
| Whether section 5328 authorizes disclosure to an agency versus the court for admissibility | 5328(f) permits court disclosure; not to a department for evidentiary use | Disclosures could be to aid administration of justice in proceedings | Not applicable to department; disclosure to court not satisfied; improper. |
| Whether the department could rely on privileged records to prove jurisdiction | Evidence should come from nonprivileged sources; privilege protected | Records necessary to prove risk of harm if nonprivileged evidence insufficient | No, privilege blocked admissibility; jurisdictional findings must be based on allowable evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.App.4th 1083 (Cal.App.4th 2001) (privilege safeguards confidentiality; broad disclosures undermine treatment)
- In re S. W., 79 Cal.App.3d 719 (Cal.App.3d 1978) (confidentiality exemptions must be narrowly construed)
- In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d 415 (Cal.1 970) (confidentiality limits; weighing privacy vs. need)
- In re Eduardo A., 209 Cal.App.3d 1038 (Cal.App.3d 1989) (post-hearing admissibility of psychological evidence; prejurisdictional limits)
- Laurie S. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal.App.4th 1994) (therapy support; waivers require careful analysis)
- In re R.R., 187 Cal.App.4th 1264 (Cal.App.4th 2010) (tendering mental health issue may permit admission under 996 exception)
- People v. Hammon, 15 Cal.4th 1117 (Cal.4th 1997) (need for in-camera review when subpoenaed psych records)