## Facts

- Dianne Turner, a Fayette County public-school kindergarten teacher, taught two five-year-old students, F.B. and C.Y.
- F.B.’s mother told Turner that F.B. reported C.Y. had been “up her butt”; Turner interpreted this as a childish prank, while the mother asserted it described digital penetration.
- Turner responded by separating the children, instructing staff to keep them apart, and counseling C.Y. that touching another student’s bottom was inappropriate.
- Turner later received a second report from F.B. of similar conduct that Turner did not witness; subsequent allegations were reported to family members rather than to Turner.
- The mother reported the matter to the principal and police and took F.B. for a medical examination showing minor irritation without tears or bruising.
- The mother sued Turner, alleging Turner violated Kentucky’s mandatory child-abuse reporting statute (KRS 620.030) by not reporting to authorities.

## Issues

1. Whether a teacher’s decision whether allegations trigger KRS 620.030 reporting is a discretionary act or a ministerial duty for qualified official immunity.
2. Whether KRS 620.030 clearly required reporting where the alleged perpetrator was another young child rather than a parent, guardian, or other custodian.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for Turner.
- The court held Turner’s decision whether the information she received fell within KRS 620.030 required professional judgment and was discretionary.
- Because Turner acted within the scope of her authority and there was no showing of bad faith, she was entitled to qualified official immunity.
- The court read the reporting framework as directed primarily at abuse by parents, guardians, or other persons exercising custodial control or supervision, and not clearly covering the alleged peer-on-peer conduct here.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified official immunity protects public employees for discretionary acts performed in good faith and within the scope of authority.
- An act is discretionary when it requires personal deliberation and judgment; it is ministerial when it is absolute, certain, and imperative based on fixed facts.
- Mandatory statutory phrasing (e.g., “shall”) does not alone make an official’s conduct ministerial; courts assess whether the official must decide whether statutory conditions are satisfied.
- Where a statute’s application depends on evaluating ambiguous, conflicting, or context-dependent information, the determination may be discretionary for immunity purposes.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that evaluating whether the reported conduct triggered KRS 620.030 required a judgment call under an unclear statutory fit for peer-on-peer allegations, making Turner’s non-reporting decision discretionary and shielded by qualified official immunity.


Turner v. Nelson, 342 S.W.3d 866 (Ky. 2011)