|
The plaintiff,
Patrice Ward, brought this action on behalf of Raegan McBride against
the defendant, The Village for Families and Children, Inc ["Village"].
The Village is a private, nonprofit organization that contracts
with individuals to provide foster care services and daycare services
to children in state custody. In 1995, the Village had been contracting
with Kathy Greene to provide foster and day care.
In 1996,
the plaintiff sought the assistance of a day care provider for McBride.
After learning of Greene's services, the plaintiff, by contacting
a public health hotline, confirmed that Greene did not have any
complaints filed against her. In fact, Greene had only one complaint
filed against her and was a "qualified" day care provider at the
time. In 1997, Greene began providing full-time day care services
to McBride. While under Greene’s care, McBride suffered a head injury
and was pronounced dead upon arrival at the hospital. The medical
examiner ruled the death a homicide. Greene was subsequently convicted
of manslaughter in the first degree.
The
plaintiff then brought an action against the Village, claiming that
the Village was liable for damages arising out of McBride's death
under Connecticut’s wrongful death statute. In order to support
a claim for wrongful death, the plaintiff had to prove that Greene
owed a duty of care to McBride. The plaintiff claimed that Village
did owe McBride a duty of care under the statute requiring mandatory
reporting of suspected child abuse. The legal issue of first impression
that subsequently arose concerned the scope of the class of persons
that was protected by the mandatory reporting statute.
The
Supreme Court concluded that the statutory language of Conn. Gen.
Stat. §17a-101 et. seq. was directed at a child or children placed
at risk in a singular incident. The Court held that the statutory
language suggested that the legislature intended to focus only on
those children who had already been exposed to conduct that amounted
to a reportable event. A mandated reporter did not owe a legally
enforceable duty to children unknown to the reporter who might stand
in the remote chance of benefiting from a report of abuse. Therefore,
the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the statute creates
a duty of care to every child who had been in the care of the defendant.
In her
dissent, Justice Katz stated that Village's failure to report allegations
of abuse by Greene constituted negligence per se. Katz opined that
Village unreasonably failed to report allegations of child abuse
and did owe a duty of care to both the abused child and to other
children who came into the care of the alleged abuser.
Kate
McGinnes, legal intern.
|
