Court Opinion

ID: 9859597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:07:09.948646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:54:53.495377
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COOK, specially concurring: I agree a court is not bound by agreements between the parties that would circumvent judicial protection of the children’s interests. I disagree, however, with the majority’s suggestion that it might have decided this issue differently if it had been the trier of fact. “The testimony of Dr. Klein might well have been helpful to the trial court and served the best interests of the child.” 352 Ill. App. 3d at 1200. The trial court got it exactly right when it noted that the child needed to have a safe place where she could discuss matters without fear that they would be disclosed. The court’s statement, joined in by Dr. Klein and the guardian ad litem, goes to a fundamental tenet of mental health counseling. “Effective psychotherapy *** depends upon an atmosphere of confidence and trust in which the patient is willing to make a frank and complete disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears.” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10, 135 L. Ed. 2d 337, 345, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928 (1996). In most cases, the best interests of the child is not served by having the child’s treating mental health counselor testify. The trial court did not appoint a mental health counselor so that the parties would have a witness the next time they returned to court. The court appointed the counselor to help the child, to provide the child with someone to confide in, someone with whom she could freely discuss her feelings and concerns. The parties are to be complimented for their agreement that the counselor would not be called as a witness. It would be exceptional for such an agreement to be disregarded. “[A]nyone seeking the nonconsensual release of mental health information faces a formidable challenge ***.” Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60, 72, 755 N.E.2d 1, 10 (2001).