Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Civil Litigation Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:During her divorce from Larry, Barbara K. sought to suspend Larry’s unsupervised visits with the couple’s children because she suspected sexual misconduct by Larry. The court ordered a psychologist from Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. Michael Cox, to act as an extension of the court in evaluating and examining the children. Dr. Cox, in turn, assigned an intern to assist him; the intern wrote a report concluding that Larry was behaving inappropriately, but the intern left Baylor, and the report was never filed. Nearly a year later, Barbara told Dr. Cox that the children had reported that Larry had sexually assaulted them, and Dr. Cox relayed that information to Children’s Protective Services. CPS’ own investigation supported Barbara’s allegations, and the agency recommended to the court that Larry’s visits be terminated, which the court did Barbara then sued the independent executrix of Dr. Cox’s estate, Baylor, the intern and Larry. She alleged that the medical defendants were negligent in not reporting Larry’s suspected abuse. The trial court granted those defendants’ motion for summary judgment, on the ground that they were entitled to absolute immunity, acting as an arm of the court. Barbara appealed, raising seven points of error. HOLDING:Affirmed. The medical defendants were entitled to absolute immunity derived from judicial immunity, the court holds, despite Barbara’s argument that they lost that immunity when they strayed from their jurisdiction and failed to report the suspected abuse. Instead, the court points out, “once an individual is cloaked with derived judicial immunity because of a particular function being performed for a court, every action taken with regard to that function �- whether good or bad, honest or dishonest, well-intentioned or not -� is immune from suit.” The court stresses that derived judicial immunity applies when nonjudges are appointed to carry out a function that is intimately associated with the judicial process and they exercise discretionary judgment as a judge would. The court also rejects Barbara’s argument that the defendants lost judicial immunity by violating statutes imposing criminal liability for a failure to act because that statute is one of general application, and not one that provides the basis of a lawsuit by a private citizen. Finally, the court concludes that Family Code �261.106, which grants limited immunity to people who in good faith report or investigate child abuse or neglect, did not abolish the common-law doctrine of derived judicial immunity. The court did not address Barbara’s remaining points of error. OPINION:Fowler, J.; Yates, Hudson and Fowler, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.