Can therapists be liable to parents for creating false memories of abuse? Mower v. Baird Explained

In a groundbreaking decision addressing therapist liability to third parties, the Utah Supreme Court in Mower v. Baird established new duties for treating therapists when their negligent methods harm nonpatient parents through false allegations of sexual abuse.

Background and Facts

Thomas Mower’s ex-wife brought their four-year-old daughter to The Children’s Center for therapy with licensed social worker Nancy Baird. Without following established guidelines, Baird allegedly used inappropriate treatment techniques that created false memories of sexual abuse by Mower. These techniques included confirmatory bias questioning, dual roles as therapist and investigator, and inadequate documentation. Based partly on Baird’s treatment, DCFS made a “supported” finding of sexual abuse against Mower, which was later changed to “unsupported” and found “unsubstantiated” by the juvenile court.

Key Legal Issues

The court faced two issues of first impression: (1) whether a treating therapist owes a traditional duty of reasonable care to a nonpatient parent to refrain from giving rise to false memories or false allegations of sexual abuse by that parent; and (2) whether that duty extends to exercising reasonable care when placing a nonpatient parent at risk of severe emotional distress.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying the five-factor Jeffs test, the court determined that treating therapists owe a limited duty to nonpatient parents. The court found the affirmative act of providing therapy creates misfeasance when inappropriate techniques are used, establishing the “plus” factors for duty. While policy considerations didn’t eliminate the duty entirely, they warranted limiting it to a recklessness standard—refraining from recklessly giving rise to false memories or false allegations of childhood sexual abuse.

The court also adopted a new limited emotional distress duty test requiring: (1) the relationship necessarily implicates the plaintiff’s emotional well-being; (2) an especially likely risk that negligence will cause severe emotional distress; and (3) no countervailing public policy considerations. The court found all three prongs satisfied for therapists treating children for potential parental sexual abuse.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands Utah tort law by creating new duties for mental health professionals to third parties. Practitioners should note that the duty is limited to reckless conduct that creates false memories or allegations, not mere negligence. The ruling also introduces a narrow exception to Utah’s zone-of-danger requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, though it maintains the severe emotional distress threshold and objective proof requirements.