Can parents recover restitution for their child's treatment costs following criminal acts? T.W. v. State Explained

In T.W. v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a parent qualifies as a “victim” entitled to restitution when their child requires counseling following a criminal offense. The case arose after sixteen-year-old T.W. engaged in unlawful sexual activity with fourteen-year-old K.C., leading to K.C.’s extended stay at a treatment center.

Background and Facts

K.C. became emotionally distressed after the sexual encounter and was taken to Life-Line, a treatment center where she had previously received care. Her counselor testified that ninety-eight percent of K.C.’s second stay was related to the sexual offense. K.C.’s father paid for her treatment costs, and the juvenile court ordered T.W. to pay restitution of $2,486.24—half the cost of K.C.’s stay at Life-Line.

Key Legal Issues

T.W. challenged the restitution order on two grounds: first, that K.C.’s father was not a “victim” entitled to restitution; and second, that the father could not recover damages in a civil suit because the counseling was not directly related to T.W.’s offense. T.W. also argued the court improperly limited testimony regarding the specific reasons for K.C.’s treatment under the therapist-patient privilege.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the Sentencing Statute’s definition of victim under Utah Code section 76-3-201(1)(e)(i), which includes “any person who the court determines has suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the defendant’s criminal activities.” Since K.C.’s father was obligated to pay for her treatment, he qualified as “any person” within this definition. The court rejected T.W.’s attempt to apply alternative victim definitions from other statutes, finding the argument was not preserved for appeal.

Regarding the privilege issue, the court applied the stringent test from State v. Blake, requiring “reasonable certainty” that privileged records contain exculpatory evidence. T.W. failed to meet this standard, as he provided only speculation rather than specific facts supported by extrinsic evidence.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that parents can recover restitution for treatment expenses when they suffer pecuniary damages from their child’s victimization. However, Judge Thorne’s concurrence raises important questions about the underlying civil liability theory supporting such restitution awards. Practitioners should carefully preserve arguments about statutory interpretation and ensure adequate factual development regarding causation between the offense and claimed damages. When seeking to pierce therapist-patient privilege, defendants must present specific, non-speculative evidence of exculpatory material rather than mere allegations.