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
- 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.