In re Kristine W.

19 Citing cases

  1. In re S.A.

    182 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 219 times
    Summarizing testimony from expert on child sexual abuse

    He argues that without Verber's statements and testimony "both the court and the [A]gency would be hampered in their efforts to ensure the minor's best interests." Kent cites In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 369] ( Kristine W.), in which the teenaged minor, Kristine, appealed the juvenile court's order permitting the Agency to receive certain information from her therapist regarding her therapy, despite her invocation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Agency sought from Kristine's therapist "'one letter that gives a general idea of whether or not the client is making progress.'"

  2. In re I.G.

    No. A123604 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2009)

    The psychotherapist-client privilege applies to the relationship between a dependent minor and his or her therapist, and protects confidential communications between them. (In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 525.) In dependency proceedings, "therapy has a dual purpose—treatment of the child to ameliorate the effects of abuse or neglect and the disclosure of information from which reasoned recommendations and decisions regarding the childs welfare can be made."

  3. In re D.K.

    No. E067325 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 27, 2017)

    "[I]n the juvenile dependency context, . . . therapy has a dual purpose—treatment of the child to ameliorate the effects of abuse or neglect and the disclosure of information from which reasoned recommendations and decisions regarding the child's welfare can be made." (In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 527.) Accordingly, the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not preclude the therapist "from giving circumscribed information to accomplish the information-gathering goal of therapy," from which the court may then determine what further services are necessary to protect the child.

  4. In re Cole C.

    174 Cal.App.4th 900 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 524 times
    Affirming dispositional order removing child from home based where siblings "[endured] physical abuse," including "the use of cold showers, icepacks and being sprayed by a garden hose"

    In this relationship between a patient and a therapist, the patient generally is the holder of the privilege unless the patient has a guardian or conservator. ( In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 525-526 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 369].) (2) For dependency proceedings, counsel that is appointed for a minor serves as the child's guardian ad litem.

  5. In re Christopher M.

    127 Cal.App.4th 684 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 76 times
    Upholding condition requiring disclosure of all records concerning court-ordered medical and psychological treatment to probation officer and court

    Equally unavailing is Christopher's contention that conditions of probation Nos. 45 and 46 should be stricken because they violate the psychotherapist-patient privilege. In In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 525 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 369], this court stated: "It is established that the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to the relationship between a dependent minor and his or her therapist. [Citations.] '[T]he purpose of the privilege is to protect the privacy of a patient's confidential communications to his [or her] psychotherapist. [Citations.]' [Citation.

  6. People v. Gonzales

    56 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 81 times
    Concluding erroneous admission of evidence was harmless where “in his closing argument, the district attorney did not emphasize the evidence affected by the trial court error”

    In Story, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th 1007, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 532, for example, the Court of Appeal, after concluding that the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to and bars the disclosure of hospital records containing the details of outpatient therapy sessions in which a probationer engaged as a condition of probation ( id. at pp. 1015–1018, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 532), went on to make clear that the therapist was not precluded from disclosing more general information to permit the court “to monitor the defendant's participation and progress in the psychotherapy ordered as a condition of probation” ( id. at p. 1019, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 532). (See also In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 528, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 369 [where juvenile court ordered dependent child to undergo therapy to ameliorate the effects of abuse or neglect, Court of Appeal concluded that “the psychotherapist-patient privilege protects [the child's] confidential communications and details of the therapy, but does not preclude her therapist from giving circumscribed information to accomplish the information-gathering goal of therapy”]; In re Pedro M., supra, 81 Cal.App.4th 550, 554–555, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 839 [where a juvenile sex offender was required to participate in therapy in a residential sex offender program, Court of Appeal concluded that therapist was permitted to testify in a subsequent proceeding as to whether the juvenile had cooperated in therapy, but at the same time the appellate court approvingly noted that the trial court “carefully sought to circumscribe [the therapist's] testimony ‘so that the details of the therapeuticsession [would] not [be] disclosed.’ As a consequence, no testimony was admitted regarding any sp

  7. L.A.N. v. L.M.B.

    292 P.3d 942 (Colo. 2013)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that "county department of human services should not hold the child's psychotherapist-patient privilege because," given that it "participates as an adversarial party in defending its dependency and neglect petition," "its duties could conflict with the child's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of therapeutic communications"

    Moreover, the juvenile court may benefit from the disclosure of otherwise-privileged information from the child's psychotherapist by using that information to form its recommendations and decisions regarding the child's welfare. See In re Kristine W., 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 527, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 369 (Cal.Ct.App.2001). ¶ 35 A juvenile court tasked with determining the scope of a GAL's waiver of the child's psychotherapist-patient privilege in a dependency and neglect case must accordingly weigh the benefits of maintaining the privilege and protecting information potentially subject to the waiver against the benefits of disclosing certain information, all the while keeping in mind its overarching duty to further the best interests of the child.

  8. Gasca v. Gasca (In re Marriage of Gasca)

    B279579 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2018)

    A trial court may permit disclosure by a child's therapist of matters that would reasonably assist the court in evaluating whether further orders are necessary for the child's benefit, and preserves the confidentiality of the details of the child's therapy. (See In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 529; In re Mark L. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573, 584.) Indeed, "[w]ithout the testimony of psychologists, in many juvenile dependency and child custody cases superior courts and juvenile courts would have little or no evidence, and would be reduced to arbitrary decisions based upon the emotional response of the court."

  9. N.S. v. Superior Court of Cal.

    7 Cal.App.5th 713 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    Relying on an All County Letter to explain the "medical condition" exemption from the Act's work and education requirements

    The Agency has provided no authority suggesting that its asserted need for such information obviates the privileged nature of N.S.'s communications with her therapist. This case is not akin to In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 369, in which a minor's patient-psychotherapist privilege was permitted to be invaded for the limited purpose of gathering information to ensure minor was receiving appropriate services. Here, N.S. is not a minor and the purpose of the inquiry is not to ensure N.S. is receiving suitable services, but to garner additional information about the nature and effects of her mental condition.

  10. D.P. v. L.A.

    D068978 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2016)

    Relying on the cases addressing therapist serving a dual purpose as a recommender and therapist, Father asserts the court could permit the disclosure of limited information " 'reasonably necessary for . . . the accomplishment of the purpose for which the psychotherapist is consulted' " pursuant to Evidence Code section 1012. (See Cole C., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 912; Mark L., supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at pp. 583-584; In re Kristine W. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 521, 527.) However, the California Supreme Court recently clarified that, although a psychotherapist serving a dual purpose may provide very limited circumscribed information to the court regarding the progress of the patient, Evidence Code section 1012 does not destroy the privilege or permit broad disclosures.