551 P.2d 389 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar

Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 497 F. Supp. 185, 194–95 (D. Neb. 1980).Google Scholar

DeFrancis, V. Lucht, C., Child Abuse Legislation in the 1970s (American Humane Ass'n, Denver) (1974) quoted in Besharov, D.J., What Physicians Should Know About Child Abuse Reporting Laws, in Child Abuse and Neglect: A Medical Reference (Ellerstein, N.S., ed.) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) (1981).Google Scholar

Ark. Stat. Ann. §42-816 (1975); Colo. Rev. Stat. $19-10-104 (4)(b); Iowa Code Ann. §235 A.20 (Supp. 1982); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. $722.633 (Supp. 1982); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law tit. 6, §420 (McKinney 1976). An example of statutory language is the Colorado provision: Any person who willfully violates the provisions of subsection (I) of this section: (a) Commits a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars; (b) Shall be liable for damages proximately caused thereby. Colo. Rev. Stat. §19-10-104 (4).Google Scholar

Landeros v. Flood, supra note 1, at 392.Google Scholar

551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar

403 A.2d 500, 514-15 (N.J. 1979).Google Scholar

141 Cal. Rptr. 92, 95 (Cal. App. 1977).Google Scholar

415 A.2d 625, 630-31 (Md. 1980).Google Scholar

409 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1981).Google Scholar

Id. at 45.Google Scholar

Derrick v. Ontario Community Hospital, 120 Cal. Rptr. 566, 572 (Cal. App. 1975); Jones v. Stanko, 160 N.E. 456, 458 (Ohio 1928).Google Scholar

Skillings v. Allen, 173 N.W. 663, 664 (Minn. 1919); Gill v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 337 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976). See generally Bross, D.C., Legal Aspects of STD Control, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Holmes, K., eds.) (McGraw-Hill, New York) (1978).Google Scholar

A.T.L.A. Reporter 24(2): 76 (1981).Google Scholar

Buege v. Iowa, No. 20521 (July 30, 1980); Fischer v. Iowa Department of Social Services, No. C 1664-280 (February 18, 1980).Google Scholar

Petition at Law, Buege v. Iowa, No. 20521, (July 30, 1980).Google Scholar

City of Jacksonville v. Florida First Nat'l Bank, 339 So.2d 632, 634 (Fla. 1976).Google Scholar

Id. at 636 ( Boyd, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Martin v. County of Weld, 598 P.2d 532, 535 (Colo. 1978).Google Scholar

No. 80-114 (D) (W.D. Va. March 23, 1981).Google Scholar

649 F.2d 134 (2d Cir. 1981).Google Scholar

Bartels v. County of Westchester, 429 N.Y.S.2d 906, 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980); Koepf v. York, 251 N.W.2d 866, 871 (Neb. 1977); Vonner v. Louisiana, 273 So.2d 252, 255–56 (La. 1973); Elton v. County of Orange, 84 Cal. Rptr. 27, 29 (Cal. App. 1970).Google Scholar

Gill v. Smith, 382 N.Y.S.2d 626, 627–28 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1976).Google Scholar

In re Adoption of Doe, 444 P.2d 800, 804 (Wash. 1968).Google Scholar

Child v. Beame, 412 F. Supp. 593, 603-05 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).Google Scholar

438 F. Supp. 1179 (1977), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979).Google Scholar

Griffin v. Pate, 644 P.2d 51 (Colo. 1982).Google Scholar

City of Jacksonville v. Florida First Nat'l Bank, supra note 17, at 633.Google Scholar

Lipari v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., supra note 2, at 195.Google Scholar

435 U.S. 349 (1978).Google Scholar

See Lawyer's Alert 1:6 (1982).Google Scholar

Nelson v. Heyne, 491 F.2d 352, 362 (7th Cir. 1974); Morales v. Turman, 383 F. Supp. 53, 126 (E.D. La. 1974).Google Scholar

Gary W. v. Louisiana, 437 F. Supp. 1209 (E.D. La. 1976).Google Scholar

See Steinberger v. Dist. Ct. in and for the Tenth Dist., 596 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1979).Google Scholar

Spearly, J.L., Caseworker Indictments—A Closer Look, National Child Protection Services Newsletter 3(4): 6 (1981) [hereinafter cited as Caseworker Indictments].Google Scholar

Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-8-405 (1978) states:Google Scholar

[A] public servant commits second degree official misconduct if he knowingly, arbitrarily, and capriciously: (a) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office, or: (b) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.Google Scholar

Second degree official misconduct is a class 1 petty offense.Google Scholar

Steinberger v. Dist. Ct. in and for the Tenth Dist., supra note 34, at 757–58. In the words of the court: Transaction immunity may be simply described as that which precludes prosecution for any transaction or affair about which a witness testifies. Use immunity, by contrast, is a grant with limitations. Rather than barring a subsequent related prosecution, it acts only to suppress, in any such prosecution, the witness' testimony and evidence derived directly or indirectly from that testimony. Id. at 757.Google Scholar

People v. Beruman, 638 P.2d 789, 794 (Colo. 1982).Google Scholar

Casper, M.F. Hutchinson, E.T., CPS Indictments in Kentucky and Their Aftermath, National Child Protection Services Newsletter 4:6 (1981).Google Scholar

El Paso Times, September 12, 1980, at 1.Google Scholar

Caseworker Indictments, supra note 35.Google Scholar

Florida v. Groff, supra note 10.Google Scholar

Denver Post, March 10, 1982, at 1, 11.Google Scholar

382 A.2d 880, 892 (Md. 1978), modified, 396 A.2d 1054 (Md. 1979).Google Scholar

396 A.2d at 1078–79.Google Scholar

Colo. Rev. Stat. §19-10-113 (3) (1978) provides that in every child abuse and neglect case filed under this section: The court … shall appoint a guardian ad litem at the first appearance of the case in court. The guardian ad litem shall be provided with all reports relevant to the case made to or by any agency or person pursuant to this article and section 19-3-101 (4) and with reports of any examination of the responsible person made pursuant to this section. The court or the social services worker assigned to the case shall advise the guardian ad litem of significant developments in the case, particularly any further abuse or neglect of the child involved. The guardian ad litem shall be charged in general with the representation of the child's interests. To that end he shall make such further investigations as he deems necessary to ascertain the facts, talk with or observe the child involved, interview witnesses and the foster parents of the child, and examine and cross-examine witnesses in both the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings and may introduce and examine his own witnesses, make recommendations to the court concerning the child's welfare, and participate further in the proceedings to the degree necessary to adequately represent the child.Google Scholar

See Fraser, B.G., Independent Representation of the Abused or Neglected Child: The Guardian ad Litem, California Western Law Review 13(1): 16 (1976).Google Scholar

National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, American Bar Association. 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 331-2250.Google Scholar

Kempe, C.H. Center for Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, National Association of Counsel for Children, 1205 Oneida Street, Denver, CO 80220, (303) 321-3963.Google Scholar

Bross, D.C., Multidisciplinary Teams and Effective Management of Abuse and Neglect, in Protecting Children Through The Legal System (American Bar Ass'n, Washington, D.C.) (1980).Google Scholar

Bross, D.C. Munson, M.M., Alternative Models of Legal Representation for Children, Oklahoma City University Law Review 5(2):561 (1980).Google Scholar