Can unwanted parental contact constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? A.W. v. Marelli Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the challenging intersection of family relationships and tort law in A.W. v. Marelli, examining when a parent’s unwanted contact with an estranged child crosses the line into actionable emotional distress.

Background and Facts

A.W. alleged that when she disclosed sexual abuse by her stepfather as a teenager, her mother Marelli denied the abuse occurred and told her never to speak of it again. After A.W.’s father reported the abuse and gained custody, A.W. cut all contact with Marelli. Despite this, Marelli continued sending letters, gifts, Facebook messages, and made unwanted visits over more than a decade. A.W. sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and negligent sexual abuse.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three critical questions: whether Marelli’s conduct was outrageous enough to support an IIED claim, whether the parent-child relationship met the strict requirements for NIED under Mower v. Baird, and whether prior warning of inappropriate behavior made sexual abuse reasonably foreseeable for negligence purposes.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

For the IIED claim, the court applied Utah’s demanding standard requiring conduct that is “extraordinarily vile” and “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” The court found that Marelli’s communications, while unwanted and sometimes insensitive, represented attempts by a mother to reconcile with her daughter and did not offend generally accepted standards of decency and morality.

Regarding NIED, the court applied the restrictive framework from Mower v. Baird, which limits recovery to relationships or activities where emotional well-being is “at the core.” The court determined that estranged parent-child relationships, while emotionally fraught, are too common to meet Mower’s “very limited” threshold.

For the negligent sexual abuse claim, the court found insufficient evidence that prior inappropriate conduct made the abuse reasonably foreseeable, noting that an isolated incident of writing on a child’s buttocks was markedly different from sexual touching.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces Utah’s restrictive approach to emotional distress claims, particularly in family contexts. Practitioners must carefully evaluate whether conduct truly rises to the extraordinary level required for IIED, as courts will not find liability based on merely hurtful or unwanted behavior. The ruling also demonstrates the narrow scope of Mower’s NIED expansion, suggesting courts will resist applying it to common family disputes.