Avitia v. Crisis Preparation

Summary

The court held that the statutory child-abuse reporting duty does not require mental-health professionals to report speculative future harm when there is no evidence of past or ongoing abuse or neglect. It also held that any common-law duty to protect third parties arises from special relationships or public policy, not foreseeability, and overruled prior precedent to the extent it recognized a foreseeability-based duty. Because Crisis Preparation complied with its statutory treatment obligations and no applicable duty to the twins existed, the court affirmed summary judgment for Crisis Preparation and vacated the intermediate appellate decision.