Court Opinion

ID: 9674230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:25:16.532713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.222991
License: Public Domain

GAMMAGE, Justice,
joined by
DOGGETT, J.,
concurring.
Though I concur, today’s judgment should not be read as conferring a grant of absolute immunity upon mental health professionals. The opinion concludes that “a privilege exists for communication of an alleged child abuser’s identity in the course of a judicial proceeding whether [or not] the accusation was negligently made.'” Every privilege carries with it a responsibility. If we are to grant mental health professionals the privilege of making such accusations, even if they are not called upon to make them, we also should hold them to an appropriate standard of professional responsibility. Adhering to its duty to recognize changes in the common law, Texas courts have from time to time imposed standards on various occupations. See, e.g., El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 308 (Tex.1987); Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d at 311; Gooden v. Tips, 651 S.W.2d at 369.
False accusations of child abuse can be devastating: they destroy reputations, relationships, even lives. Our society faces no problem more serious than child abuse. Though we should give mental health workers in this field some latitude and protection *773in their efforts to eradicate child abuse, commensurate standards of professional discretion should apply, and failure to adhere to such standards could foreseeably result in their judicial recognition and enforcement.