ILNews

Juvenile's records not protected by counselor/client privilege

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Howard Superior Court erred in finding that the counselor/client privilege prevented the admission of a son’s counseling records during a custody modification hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The trial court ruled that W.B.’s counseling records, which included his counselor’s notes, summaries, risk assessments, and status reports, were privileged and that no exception to the counselor/client privilege applied.

W.B. was adjudicated a delinquent after he admitted to a sexual battery charge against his sister A.B. A.B. and W.B. lived with their mother who had physical custody of the children after the mother and father divorced. When the father learned W.B. had touched his sister inappropriately, he reported it to Child Protective Services and A.B. moved in with her maternal grandparents due to a no-contact order between the siblings.

W.B. went to counseling, in which his social worker found he remained at a high risk to re-offend. W.B. was eventually discharged from treatment, his probation ended, and the no-contact order ended. A.B. moved back in to live with her mother and brother. That’s when the father petitioned for modification of custody seeking physical custody of A.B. due to the threat of potential molestations by W.B.

The trial court denied father’s petition to modify custody, finding A.B. is older and in school, and while the charges are substantial, they aren’t enough to modify custody.

The counselor/client privilege is set forth in Indiana Code Section 25-23.6-6-1, but it is subject to exceptions. I.C. Section 31-32-11-1 abrogates the privilege in proceedings resulting from reports of child abuse.

“The statute has been applied for the most part in criminal prosecutions,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in J.B. v. E.B. No.34A04-1002-DR-110. “But Section 31-32-11-1 is worded broadly and abrogates the enumerated privileges in ‘any judicial proceeding’ resulting from a report of child abuse or ‘relating to the subject matter of the report.’”   

A.B. reported that her brother touched her inappropriately, which led to W.B.’s delinquency proceedings and the father’s petition to modify custody. He wants to prevent further abuse of A.B., and the privileged information concerns the brother’s potential to re-offend.

“In line with the foregoing, we conclude that the instant case is a proceeding within the purview of Section 31-32-11-1 and in which the counselor/client privilege does not apply,” she wrote. “We therefore find the trial court erred in excluding W.B.’s counseling records on the basis of privilege. We also cannot say the error was harmless, given the content of W.B.’s counseling records and the limited grounds on which the trial court based its ruling.”

The case was remanded for further proceedings.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT