## Facts

- During divorce proceedings in Idaho, a child’s mother reported suspected sexual abuse by the child’s father, Alex Ramsey.
- An Idaho physician examined the child in February 2003 and did not find support for the abuse suspicion.
- After the family moved to Arizona, the mother took the child to therapist Brenda Sheets at Cornerstone Family Counseling in September 2003 and reported her belief that Ramsey had molested the child.
- Sheets observed concerning behavior and, during a later session, the child stated that her father touched her inappropriately.
- Sheets reported suspected abuse to Child Protective Services; a sheriff’s detective opened a criminal investigation.
- As part of the investigation, nurses LaRayne Ness and Judy Denton performed a forensic sexual-abuse exam associated with Yavapai Regional Medical Center and the Yavapai Family Advocacy Center (YFAC) and reported findings consistent with abuse.
- Ramsey was indicted on sexual-offense charges; the prosecution later dismissed the case without prejudice based on a low likelihood of conviction.
- Ramsey sued YFAC, Sheets, the nurses, and related medical entities for torts including negligence, defamation, and malicious prosecution, alleging lack of reasonable grounds and malice in reporting and investigative participation.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the defendants based on statutory immunity; Ramsey appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether A.R.S. § 13-3620 immunized a therapist, forensic nurses, and a child-advocacy center from civil liability for reporting suspected child abuse and participating in the resulting investigation absent proof of malice or lack of reasonable grounds.
2. Whether a child’s therapist owed a tort duty to an accused, non-patient parent for harms arising from the therapist’s diagnosis, reporting, and treatment actions.
3. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that defendants acted maliciously or without reasonable cause sufficient to defeat statutory immunity.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held the defendants had reasonable grounds to suspect abuse based on the mother’s reports, the child’s statements and behavior, and contemporaneous medical findings.
- The court found Ramsey produced no competent evidence of malice or knowing falsity to overcome statutory immunity.
- The court held the therapist owed no actionable duty to Ramsey, an alleged abuser and non-patient, in the child-abuse reporting context.
- Because Ramsey’s tort theories depended on proving malice or absence of reasonable grounds, the statutory immunity barred the claims as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 13-3620 requires designated professionals to report suspected child abuse when they have a reasonable belief or reasonable grounds to believe abuse occurred.
- The statute provides civil immunity for good-faith reporting and for good-faith participation in investigations and related proceedings arising from such reports.
- Statutory immunity is not defeated by the later dismissal of criminal charges, standing alone, because dismissal does not establish bad faith, malice, or knowing falsity at the time of reporting.
- A child’s therapist generally owes professional duties to the patient (and consistent statutory obligations to report), not to an accused, non-patient parent; recognizing a duty to the alleged abuser would conflict with mandatory-reporting policy.
- When a plaintiff offers only speculation or disagreement with professional conclusions, without admissible evidence supporting malice or lack of reasonable grounds, summary judgment is appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld statutory immunity for professionals and entities that reported and investigated suspected child abuse based on reasonable grounds and rejected negligence claims premised on an asserted duty owed by a child’s therapist to an accused, non-patient parent.


Ramsey v. Yavapai Fam. Advoc. Ctr., 225 Ariz. 132, 235 P.3d 285 (Ct. App. 2010)