• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Austin, Ellison, & Lester 
William Allan Kritsonis, PhDProfessor
Abused and Neglected ChildrenINTRODUCTIONThe Family Code requires that anyone having cause to believe that a child’s physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect shallimmediately report it to a local or state law enforcement agency, Department of Protection and Regulatory Services (Family Code § 261.101).For the purpose of this report, we will present a case that relates to the Family Code andhow individuals can report an abused and neglected child out of good faith.Court of Appeals of Texas,San Antonio.Thalia CHANEY, Appellant,v.Diane Pearl CORONA and Gilbert Corona, Appellees. No. 04-02-00826-CV.Feb. 28, 2003.LITIGANTSPlaintiff’s- Allellant: Thalia ChaneyDefendant- Appellees: Diana Pearl Corona and Gilbert CoronaBACKGROUNDA student's parent reported that the student's teacher, Diane Pearl Corona (“Corona”),hit the student in the eye with a chair. Chaney, the principal of the school, reported theincident to Ed Paschal, the Executive Director of Pupil Personnel, who instructed Chaneyto interview the student. Chaney reported the allegations made during her interview of thestudent to her supervisor and was instructed to interview a few other students in the class.Chaney later was instructed to report the incident to Child Protective Services.
 
Austin, Ellison, & Lester Eventually, the student sued Corona for personal injury. Corona filed a counter-claimagainst the student and a third party claim against Chaney. The suit against Corona wassettled, and the counter-claim against the student was dismissed; however, Corona pursued claims for defamation and conspiracy against Chaney. Chaney's answer assertedimmunity as an affirmative defense. Chaney moved for both a traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. Chaney filed this accelerated appeal after her motion wasdenied.FACTSSchool teacher brought action against school principal, asserting claims of defamationand conspiracy arising from principal's report to Child Protective Services of suspectedchild abuse committed by teacher upon student. The 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County,Pat J. Boone, J., denied principal's motion for summary judgment based onimmunity, and principal appealed. The Court of Appeals,Catherine Stone, J., held that:(1) principal's report of child abuse was made in good faith, and (2) affidavits supportingsummary judgment were not conclusory.In order for school principal to show that report to Child Protective Services of childabuse committed by teacher upon student was made in good faith, so as to be entitled toimmunity from liability arising from report of abuse, principal had to show that areasonably prudent principal, under the same or similar circumstances, could have believed that reporting the abuse was justified based on the information she possessed.Even if the defendant acted negligently in reporting child abuse, good faith is notdefeated, for the purposes of entitlement to immunity from liability, because the test isnot what a reasonable person would have done, but what a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant could have believed.V.T.C.A., Family Code § 261.106.In order for teacher to show that school principal did not act in good faith in reportingto Child Protective Services alleged child abuse upon student, for purposes of entitlementto immunity from liability, teacher had to offer evidence that no reasonable principalcould have believed that facts were such that they justified principal's conduct; if  principals of reasonable competence could disagree on issue, school principal acted ingood faith as matter of law.V.T.C.A., Family Code § 261.106.
DECISION
The only issues we have jurisdiction to consider in this appeal relate to the trial court'sdenial of Chaney's summary judgment based on her assertions of immunity-anaffirmative defense. Because Chaney has the burden of proof with regard to her affirmative defenses, a no-evidence motion for summary judgment is not proper;therefore, we only consider whether the trial court erred in denying the motion under traditional summary judgment standards.
See
 TEX.R. CIV. P. 166a(i)(providing that
 
Austin, Ellison, & Lester  party may move for summary judgment on ground that no evidence exists on one or moreelements of claim or defense adverse party has burden to prove at trial).“When reviewing a summary judgment, we follow these well-established rules: (1)The movant has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact andthat it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is adisputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to thenonmovant will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be indulged infavor of the nonmovant and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmovant.”avoidance as a matter of law.”In this case, Chaney presented two affidavits to support her decision to make thereport. Although Corona presented an abundance of evidence in an effort to discount thestudent's allegation and to show that Chaney was a vindictive person, Corona did not present any evidence that no reasonable principal in Chaney's position could have believed that she was required to report the alleged abuse based on the facts presented toher. Accordingly, Corona failed to controvert Chaney's showing of good faith, and thetrial court erred in denying Chaney's motion for summary judgment.
DICTA
Corona contends the trial court erred in denying her objections to certain portionsof the affidavits filed by Chaney and Martin, contending that the affidavits wereconclusory. We hold that the affidavits are not conclusory. A conclusory statement is onethat does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion.. Chaney and Martinset forth the facts underlying the decision to make the report to establish good faith.Corona also contends that the trial court erred in striking the affidavit of Cynthia DudaDubois. Dubois's affidavit does not *612 controvert the summary judgment evidenceregarding Chaney's reasonable belief that she was required to file the report; therefore,even if the affidavit had not been excluded, Chaney would still have conclusivelyestablished her immunity under section 261.106 of the Texas Family Code.
IMPICATIONS
The trial court's judgment is reversed, and judgment is rendered granting Chaney'smotion for summary judgment. Chaney's request that we find Corona's lawsuit to befrivolous is denied. _____________________________________________________________________________ 
William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor
In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis was inducted into the
William H. Parker LeadershipAcademy Hall of Honor,
Graduate School, Prairie View A&M University – The TexasA&M University System. He was nominated by doctoral and master’s degree students.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...