Opinion ID: 1523385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Release of Records

Text: Father argues first that the court erred in ordering release of his therapy and medical records, contending that the court erroneously relied on the implied waiver of physician-patient privilege set forth in In re M.M., 153 Vt. 102, 105, 569 A.2d 463, 465 (1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1059, 110 S.Ct. 1532, 108 L.Ed.2d 771 (1990). Father is correct that following this Court's decision in In re M.M. subsection (7) was added to V.R.E. 503(d) to overrule the implied waiver analysis of that case. Reporter's Notes, V.R.E. 503(d)(7). But his suggestion that the court relied on In re M.M., rather than the rule, in releasing the records is erroneous. The court fully addressed the procedural and substantive requirements of V.R.E. 503(d)(7), 42 U.S.C. §§ 290dd-3 (confidentiality of alcohol-abuse patient records), 290ee-3 (confidentiality of drug-abuse patient records), and 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.51-2.64 (disclosure of substance-abuse patient records without patient consent or under court order), [] finding that the requirements of both V.R.E. 503(d)(7) and the federal law had been met. Father also contends that the records were more than one year old at the time of hearing and that their prejudicial impact outweighed any probative value. It is clear that the court knew the records were a year old, and took due account of that fact. In any event, the evidence supporting the court's TPR decision was overwhelming, apart from the therapy and medical records. The central focus of the court was the pervasive abuse of B.W. over a lengthy period of time and father's unyielding resistance to any plan proposed to meet B.W.'s needs and to enhance his own personal development and parenting capabilities. The expert evidence evaluating the total family, separate and apart from father's medical and therapy records, was substantial and clear. The father's own records provided corroboration, but were not essential to the court's determination.