Utah Supreme Court
Do treating therapists owe duties to nonpatient parents in child abuse cases? Smith v. Robinson Explained
Summary
Rocio Smith sued therapist Kayelyn Robinson for malpractice after Robinson treated Smith’s children following sexual abuse allegations, allegedly violated court orders, and improperly acted as both treatment provider and forensic evaluator. The district court dismissed the malpractice claim, finding no duty existed between the therapist and nonpatient parent.
Analysis
In Smith v. Robinson, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a significant question about the scope of professional duties owed by treating therapists to nonpatient parents in child sexual abuse cases.
Background and Facts
Rocio Smith’s ex-husband and his new wife brought Smith’s children to therapist Kayelyn Robinson following allegations that Smith had sexually abused the children. Robinson allegedly improperly relied on information from the accusers, inappropriately acted as both treatment provider and forensic evaluator, and violated court orders by continuing contact with the children. Robinson also allegedly accessed HIPAA-protected records improperly and provided them to parties and attorneys. As a result, Smith lost visitation with her children for several years and suffered personal and financial harm.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether a treating therapist owes a duty of reasonable care to a nonpatient parent when treating that parent’s child for potential allegations of sexual abuse. The district court had dismissed Smith’s malpractice claim, finding no duty existed based on the therapist’s role as a testifying witness.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court decided this case in conjunction with the companion case Mower v. Baird, which established that treating therapists “owe a duty to a minor patient’s parents to refrain from affirmative acts that recklessly violate the standard of care in a manner that gives rise to false memories or false allegations of sexual abuse committed by the plaintiff nonpatient parent.” This duty extends to causing severe emotional distress, not just physical or property harm.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly expands potential liability for treating therapists in child abuse cases. Practitioners should note the distinction between claims arising from treatment conduct versus courtroom testimony—while therapists generally have no duty regarding their testimony, they may face liability for treatment-related conduct that violates professional standards. The court remanded for proceedings consistent with Mower, allowing Smith to potentially pursue her malpractice claim based on Robinson’s treatment conduct rather than her testimony.
Case Details
Case Name
Smith v. Robinson
Citation
2018 UT 30
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20160106
Date Decided
July 5, 2018
Outcome
Remanded
Holding
Treating therapists owe a duty to nonpatient parents to refrain from affirmative acts that recklessly violate the standard of care in a manner that gives rise to false memories or false allegations of sexual abuse, as established in the companion case Mower v. Baird.
Standard of Review
Correctness standard for questions of law
Practice Tip
When representing clients in therapist malpractice cases involving nonpatient parents, carefully distinguish between claims arising from treatment conduct versus courtroom testimony, as different duty standards may apply.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.