## Facts

- During dissolution proceedings, Sharon Zamstein accused her husband, Jacob Zamstein, of sexually abusing their two minor children.
- Jacob Zamstein was arrested and charged with sexually assaulting the children.
- Sharon Zamstein retained Dr. Jamshid Marvasti, a Connecticut-licensed psychiatrist, to perform a sexual-abuse evaluation of the children.
- Marvasti met with the children multiple times and videotaped each session.
- Marvasti provided an edited version of the videotapes to the prosecutor and to Jacob Zamstein’s criminal defense counsel.
- Jacob Zamstein alleged the edits removed exculpatory portions and that the prosecution continued because of the edited tapes.
- Marvasti testified for the state at the criminal trial; after a three-month trial, Jacob Zamstein was acquitted.
- Jacob Zamstein sued Marvasti in tort, alleging negligent preparation and editing of the videotapes and resulting damages from the criminal prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether a psychiatrist retained to evaluate children for possible sexual abuse owes a duty of care in negligence to the alleged abuser concerning the evaluation and dissemination of the resulting materials.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Marvasti after the trial court struck the negligence claims for lack of duty.
- The court held that Marvasti owed no duty of care to Jacob Zamstein, the alleged abuser, in conducting the evaluation or providing the videotapes.
- The court accepted that harm to the alleged abuser could be foreseeable but concluded public policy barred imposing such a duty.
- The court reasoned that a duty running to an alleged abuser would create conflicting obligations for evaluators and would inhibit participation in child-abuse investigations.

## Legal Principles

- In Connecticut, negligence duty analysis considers foreseeability and, even where harm is foreseeable, whether public policy supports imposing a duty.
- Mental health professionals engaged to evaluate children for possible sexual abuse owe their primary professional obligation to the child and to the integrity of the fact-finding process, not to the suspected perpetrator.
- Public policy favoring effective investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse counsels against recognizing a negligence duty to alleged abusers, due to the risk of inhibiting evaluators and distorting evaluations.
- The no-duty holding is limited to duties owed to the alleged abuser and does not negate potential duties owed to the child or retaining party under other legal rules.

## Conclusion

The court refused to recognize a negligence duty from a child sexual-abuse evaluator to the alleged abuser, holding that public policy supporting child protection and unconflicted, effective evaluations outweighs the foreseeability of harm to a suspected perpetrator.


Zamstein v. Marvasti, 240 Conn. 549, 692 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1997)