## Facts

- A licensed clinical psychologist treated an adult woman from 1990 through at least October 1995.
- During therapy, the patient reported “repressed memories” of sexual abuse allegedly committed by her father.
- In a February 6, 1992 counseling session attended by the psychologist, the patient, and the father, the patient accused the father of abuse occurring when she was about 11.
- The father alleged the psychologist suggested the father might further harm the patient and asserted that both the patient and father had repressed memories of the abuse.
- The psychologist recommended the father seek therapy and referred him to another psychologist.
- The father sued the psychologist and her professional corporation, alleging negligent treatment methods that induced false recovered memories and caused the patient to become estranged from him, depriving him of her society and companionship.
- The father did not allege any therapist–patient relationship between himself and the psychologist.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychologist owes a legal duty to a nonpatient parent for relational harms allegedly caused by the psychologist’s treatment of the psychologist’s patient.
2. Whether Illinois law recognizes a claim for intentional interference with a family relationship based on therapeutic practices that allegedly led an adult child to estrange from a parent.
3. Whether the complaint stated legally cognizable claims sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal under § 2-615.
- The court held the defendants owed no legally cognizable duty of care to the nonpatient father for injuries allegedly resulting from the patient’s therapy.
- The court held the complaint failed to state a claim for intentional interference with a family relationship on the alleged facts.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts accept well-pleaded facts as true but decide as a matter of law whether those facts state a recognized cause of action.
- In determining whether a duty exists, Illinois considers factors including foreseeability and likelihood of injury, the burden of guarding against it, and the consequences of imposing that burden.
- A mental health provider’s duty of care in outpatient treatment runs to the patient; absent a special relationship or other recognized basis, it does not extend to nonpatient relatives asserting derivative relational harms from the patient’s treatment.
- Tort duties will not be expanded where doing so would create conflicts between a therapist’s obligations to the patient and exposure to liability to third parties, and would materially interfere with psychotherapy.
- Illinois did not recognize, on these facts, a tort for intentional interference with a parent–adult-child relationship based on alleged interference occurring through treatment of the adult child rather than direct, targeted conduct toward the parent.

## Conclusion

The court held that a psychologist treating an adult patient owes no duty to a nonpatient parent for alleged estrangement caused by the treatment and declined to recognize an intentional-interference claim premised on the therapist’s therapeutic practices, so the father’s complaint was properly dismissed.


Doe v. McKay, 700 N.E.2d 1018 (Ill. 1998)