Court Opinion

ID: 9727425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:36:21.70964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:37.550055
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
At issue is the interpretation to be given Indiana Code § 31-6-7-18(d) which provides:
Neither the physician-patient privilege nor the husband-wife privilege is grounds for excluding evidence in any proceeding in which the child is alleged to be a child in need of services.
The present proceeding is one in which the appellee seeks to terminate the appellant's parental rights with respect to a child previously adjudicated a child in need of services (CHINS). A proceeding for termination of parental rights, although an outgrowth of a CHINS proceeding, is not a continuing stage of that proceeding. Rather it is a separate proceeding. State ex rel. Gosnell v. Cass Circuit Court (1991), Ind., 577 N.E.2d 957, 958.
The public policy underlying the physician-patient privilege is to foster full and complete communication by patients so as to further trustful and successful treat ment. Matter of C.P. (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 1275, 1278. See also Green v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 244, 255, 274 N.E.2d 267, 2783. With the enactment of Ind.Code § 31-6-7-13(d), the legislature created an express, limited exeeption to the physician-patient privilege to facilitate judicial determination of the child's status as one in need of protection or services not forthcoming from the child's family.
Onee a CHINS adjudication is made, however, the juvenile court may then enter a number of dispositional decrees, including outpatient treatment for the child and the provision of family services for the parent. Ind.Code § 81-6-4-15.4. Additionally, the parent may be subject to a petition seeking required cooperation with any person providing care, treatment, or rehabilitation for the child. Ind.Code § 31-6-4-17. Among the expressly recognized policies of this state and purposes of our juvenile code is an intent "[to strengthen family life by assisting parents to fulfill their parental obligations." Ind.Code § 31-6-1-1(5).
To attain this legislative goal, it is thus essential that both children and parents be encouraged to provide full, unfettered information to treating physicians. By ruling that otherwise confidential physician-patient communication is subject to disclosure at a subsequent termination hearing, this Court is erecting a major disincentive to open communication contrary to the legislative preference for preservation rather than termination of the parent-child relationship.
I interpret the legislative exception to the physician-patient privilege as applicable only to a proceeding seeking an adjudication of an allegation that a child is in need of services. The statute does not extend the exception to parental rights termination proceedings, and I believe it is erroneous to do so by expansive judicial statutory interpretation.