In Re Eduardo A.
LUCAS, P.J.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children‘s Services (DCS) appeals from the order dismissing a supplemental petition filed under
FACTS
In 1985, Eduardo, Sheila, Catalina, Maria and Laura A. were declared dependent children of the juvenile court (
On July 15, 1987, supplemental petitions were filed pursuant to
At the adjudication hearing, the mother‘s therapist was callеd as a witness. The court sustained the mother‘s objection and granted her motion to strike testimony of her therapist involving the mother‘s confidential communications.
TESTIMONY OF THERAPIST
(1) Apрellant contends the court erred in granting the mother‘s motion to strike the psychiatric social worker‘s testimony regarding the mother‘s statement to her during treatment. We disagree.
Under
Apрellant‘s position is that Ms. Diaz-Akahori, the psychiatric social worker, was court appointed to work with the mother, and thus any patient-psychotherapist communications were subject to the exception of
The express intention of the Legislature in enacting
A juvenile court‘s referral of a parent for counseling after a finding that the children had been molested is obviously consistent with these aims and
In contrast, a court-ordered psychiatric examination is aimed at determining for the informatiоn of the patient and/or for the court, the patient‘s mental or emotional condition. It is an information-gathering tool, rather than a treatment tool. The exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege in
Appellant‘s reliance on Collins v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal. App.3d 47 [141 Cal. Rptr. 273] is unavailing. Collins involved court appointment of a medical expert in a dependency case to examine a minor child‘s medical records, consult with the parents’ counsel regarding those records, prepare a written rеport and testify at trial, if so requested. The court held that the doctor‘s testimony regarding his examination of the medical records was not privileged. (Collins, supra, at pp. 52-54.)
Unlike Collins, the case before us does not involve court appointment of a psychotherapist to examine the mother for the purpose of gathering information and advising counsel. Instead, it involves a court referral of the mother for counseling after a determination that her children had been molested by their father. The obvious purpose of the referral was to provide the mother with treatment so that she could understand the harm done to the children and learn to protect them from future harm.
Crucial to psychotherapeutic treatment is a patient‘s readiness to reveal his thoughts, dreams, fantasies, sins and shame. It would be unreasonable to expect a patient to freely participate in such treatment if hе knew that what he said and what the therapist learned from what he said could all be revealed in court. A patient in therapy has and needs a justifiable expectation of confidentiality as to his psychotherapeutic treatment. (See In re Lifschutz, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 431.)
Appellant argues that application of the psychotherapist-patient privilege in this context would obstruct the court‘s ability to evaluate, at a dependency status review hearing, whether return of a child to his or her parents
We note, first, that at least 10 days before a review hearing, the social worker is required to prepare and file “a supplemental report with the court regarding the services offered to the family, the progress mаde, and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the minor to the physical custody of his or her parent or guardian, and make his or her recommendation for disposition.” (
Implicit in these requirements for preparаtion and consideration of a “progress report” is the Legislature‘s recognition of a social worker‘s expertise in evaluating a parent‘s cooperation, development and growth as these matters relate to the parent‘s ability to provide a safe, well-supervised home for the child. Such information can be developed from a variety of sources including the social worker‘s personal observations as well as his or her interviews with the parent, neighbors, teachers, relatives, physicians, and even the children themselves; it need not depend on revelаtions by the treating psychotherapist. (See In re S.W. (1978) 79 Cal. App.3d 719, 722-723 [145 Cal. Rptr. 143].) Moreover, not all court-ordered treatment programs involve relationships protected by evidentiary privileges. Thus, the social worker may be able to obtain direct information from a teacher or group leader regarding a pаrent‘s participation and progress in programs such as those dealing with substance abuse, parenting, housekeeping, safety, or job training.
However, when the reunification plan does require a parent to participate in a counseling program, we recognize that the theraрist could be of great value to the court in its evaluation of the progress the parent has made
In the alternative, the court can, in its initial order referring a parent to counseling, further order the treating psychotherapist to prepare a report concerning the parent‘s participation and progress for the court‘s usе at the review hearing. In this way, both therapist and patient will be fairly apprised at the outset of their relationship that communications relating to participation and progress made during treatment are subject to use by the therapist in preparing the ordered report, and there will be nо expectation of confidentiality in the ensuing relationship as to those matters. (See In re Edward D. (1976) 61 Cal. App.3d 10, 15 [132 Cal. Rptr. 100]; see also People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 431 [243 Cal. Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279]; People v. Stritzinger (1983) 34 Cal.3d 505, 524 [194 Cal. Rptr. 431, 668 P.2d 738] (conc. and dis. opn. of Kaus, J.).)
The trial court correctly granted the mother‘s motion to strike the psychiatric social worker‘s testimony as to a statement made by the mother during counseling.
EXCLUSION OF SOCIAL STUDY
(2a) Appellant also claims the trial court erred in excluding the social study prepared by social worker David Boydston. This contention has merit.
(3) A dependency proceeding under
A social study of the minor must be prepared by the probation officer, received in evidence and considered by the court at the disposition hearing on a sustained
Respondent parents urge, however, that the court correctly ruled that the social study‘s admissibility was conditioned on its preparation having been ordered by the court under
We read that sectiоn as providing authority for the court to obtain and consider a report such as a social study whenever relevant to a case involving a minor‘s custody, status or welfare. Thus, in a case in which a social study is not required and has not otherwise been prepared, the court can order a social worker to investigate and prepare a report which the court can then receive into evidence and consider.
We find nothing in this grant of authority that precludes admissibility of reports or social studies that were prepared without court order.
A social study, whether or not ordered by the court under
The report contained relevant information regarding the allegations in the
DISPOSITION
The order is reversed. Parties to bear their own costs on appeal.
Boren, J., and Kennard, J., concurred.