Negligence – Psychiatric care – Minor

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff whose 14-year-old daughter was committed voluntarily to the psychiatric ward at the defendant hospital asserted claims for negligence and intentional interference with custodial relations, the plaintiff’s challenge to an award of summary judgment in favor of the defendant should be rejected, as she was not owed any duty to provide “family-driven” treatment to her as well as to her daughter, to “facilitate adequate contact” between her and her daughter, to “support the [mother-daughter] relationship,” or to “provide reasonable aftercare.”

Affirmed.

“This case presents questions regarding the duties owed by medical providers to the parent of a minor child to whom they are providing psychiatric treatment. The plaintiff, Claudia Felder, is the mother of K.W., who was fourteen years old when she was committed voluntarily to the psychiatric ward at defendant Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) in 2012, and remained there for six weeks. …

“Felder now appeals from the dismissal of her claims on summary judgment, and from the jury’s verdict.5 Felder’s appeal focuses, in particular, on her claims that the defendant medical providers breached duties owed directly to her, in connection with the provision of care to her daughter. For example, Felder claims that as part of their standard of care the defendants owed duties to provide ‘family-driven’ treatment to her and her daughter, and to ‘facilitate adequate contact’ between her and her daughter. Felder asserts that the defendants breached these duties, and acted in derogation of her relationship with her daughter. These claims were dismissed at summary judgment, with the motion judge ruling that no such duties were owed. We conclude that while the hospital and the defendant medical providers do have certain obligations to the parent of a minor child in their care — in particular, the obligation to confer regarding treatment and to obtain informed consent — they do not owe the duties asserted by Felder. We accordingly affirm. …

“With respect to Felder’s negligence claim, the first question we face is what duties, if any, the defendants owed to the custodial parent of their fourteen year old patient. Felder claims she was owed four such duties: (1) to provide ‘family-driven’ treatment to her, as well as to K.W., (2) to ‘facilitate adequate contact’ between her and K.W., (3) to ‘support the [mother-daughter] relationship,’ and (4) to ‘provide reasonable aftercare.’ The Superior Court judge ruled that no such duties were owed. While we agree that the defendants did not owe the duties asserted by Felder, the defendants did have certain obligations to communicate with Felder (or her designee) in connection with their treatment of K.W. …

“Here the defendants’ patient was K.W., a fourteen year old. As a baseline rule, the defendants owed their professional duties to her, not to her custodial parent. One of the duties the defendants owed to K.W., however, was to obtain informed consent in connection with her treatment. …

“When the patient is a minor, the person responsible for making decisions regarding medical treatment generally is the minor’s legal custodian. …

“The duties that Felder asserts in this case, however, are not duties to make disclosure so as to facilitate the informed treatment of K.W. Rather, Felder asserts that because the defendants were treating her daughter, the defendants owed duties to her. We agree with the motion judge that no such duties were owed. A psychiatrist treating a minor child does not have an obligation also to treat the child’s parents, or other family. Nor does a psychiatrist owe a general duty to the parents to ‘facilitate’ the child’s relationship with them, or to provide the parents ‘reasonable aftercare.’ …

“… The defendants did not owe the duties that Felder asserts. The defendants owed duties to their patient, K.W., to properly obtain informed consent for her treatment from her adult custodian, but Felder does not assert that the defendants breached the duty to obtain informed consent — she does not claim that any lack of communication with her resulted in an uninformed or unconsented treatment decision. … Felder’s purported claim of negligence as to her was properly dismissed.”

Felder v. The Children’s Hospital Corporation, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-070-20) (22 pages) (Englander, J.) A motion for summary judgment was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.; the case was tried before Joseph F. Leighton, Jr., J., and a motion for a new trial was heard by him. Peter J. Duffy for the plaintiff; Richard J. Riley (Stephen D. Coppolo also present) for the defendants (Docket No. 19-P-298) (June 11, 2020).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.