Case Notes: Parental Immunity Doctrine - Rourk v. State of Arizona, 170 Ariz. 6, 821 P.2d 273 ( ); Doe v. Holt, 332 N.C. 90, 418 S.E.2d 511 (1992)

• NCJ Number: 148850
• Journal: Journal of Juvenile Law Volume: 14 Dated: (1993) Pages: 202-211
• Author(s): C S Steinberg; M D Finley
• Date Published: 1993
• Length: 10 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Two cases involving the parental immunity doctrine are discussed.

Abstract

In Rourk v. State of Arizona, the Arizona Court of Appeals was asked to consider, for the first time, whether the parental immunity doctrine applies to foster parents in an action for negligent supervision. The Court held that the parental immunity doctrine does not apply to foster parents in an action for negligent supervision of a foster child, and the foster parents may be held liable in tort, so long as the foster parents are not related to the child through blood, marriage, or adoption. A brief factual and procedural history of this case is provided. In Doe v. Holt, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether the parent-child immunity doctrine barred a tort action by unemancipated minor children against their father for damages allegedly resulting from the children's repeated rape and sexual molestation by their father. The Court found that the parent-child immunity doctrine does not bar tort actions of unemancipated minors against their parents for damages resulting from the parent's willful and malicious misconduct. The Court determined that rape and sexual molestation are clearly willful and serious misconduct. Footnotes