Summary
The Supreme Court of Georgia clarifies the scope of the statutory mental health privilege in response to a grand jury subpoena seeking therapy records of minor children involved in a criminal prosecution. The court holds that the privilege protects confidential communications made during court-ordered treatment if treatment was given or contemplated, rejecting the lower courts' limitation to voluntary treatment. While affirming the applicability of the privilege, the case is remanded for an in camera review of the records and consideration of appointing a guardian ad litem to represent the children's interests.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the psychologist‑patient privilege applies to records sought by a grand‑jury subpoena when the treatment was court‑ordered and not voluntarily sought
- Whether communications between minor patients and their mental‑health providers are privileged under OCGA §§ 24‑9‑21(6) and 43‑39‑16
Holdings
- The privilege applies when a professional relationship exists, which is satisfied if treatment is given or contemplated, regardless of whether the patient voluntarily sought treatment.
- Communications and admissions between a patient and a mental‑health provider are privileged under OCGA §§ 24‑9‑21 and 43‑39‑16; transcripts of such communications are not subject to disclosure.
Key quotations
“The privilege covers communications and admissions between a patient and a mental health provider (OCGA § 24‑9‑21), and "[t]he confidential relations and communications between a licensed psychologist and client are placed upon the same basis as those provided by law between attorney and client."” (at 650)
Factual background
Psychologists Dr. Herendeen and Dr. Haskell were subpoenaed by a grand jury to produce records concerning two minor patients, A.P. and M.P., who were involved in a criminal prosecution of their father. The children had been receiving court‑ordered therapy, and the psychologists moved to quash the subpoena invoking the psychologist‑patient privilege.
Procedural history
The trial court ordered the psychologists to produce records for in‑camera inspection. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the privilege does not cover records not prepared in the course of treatment. The State sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the privilege issue.
Remand instructions
Conduct an in‑camera review of the mental‑health providers' files to determine any non‑privileged material; determine whether either child needs a guardian ad litem to decide whether to invoke the privilege; return to the trial court for further proceedings.