The End of the Affair -- School District Not Liable for Parents' Emotional Distress on Discovery of Daughter's Sexual Relationship with Teacher

Continuing its busy day of ordering its earlier decisions published (see following post), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District has ruled that the parents of an 11th grade daughter may not recover damages from the school district for the emotional distress that they sustained when they discovered -- despite her best efforts to hide it from them -- that their daughter had become involved in a sexual relationship with one of her teachers.

The case concerns only the emotional distress of the parents; all claims involving injury and damage directly to these plaintiffs' daughter were resolved on terms not discussed in the decision. The appellate court concludes that the parents -- who unquestionably sustained a significant emotional shock on the discovery of their daughter's situation -- have no cognizable claim under any of the theories permitting emotional distress recovery under California law:

1. The parents were not "bystanders" who directly perceived physical harm being inflicted on a family member. To the contrary, their daughter apparently went to no little trouble to see to it that her parents did not perceive what was happening between her and her teacher.

2. The parents could not claim status as "direct victims" of any negligence in the school district's supervision of the teacher. The court concluded that nothing in the district's action or inaction had been "directed at" the parents. While the parents' distress might have been a consequence of the district's negligence, the direct cause of that distress was not that negligence but the daughter's sexual relationship itself.

3. The parents could not recover under the theory of Bro v. Glaser -- a case whose value as precedent is open to doubt -- which suggested that "outrageous" conduct toward a family member will allow a relative to recover. While the teacher's conduct might be deemed outrageous, the conduct of the district or his fellow teachers was not.

4. Finally, the court found that the broad, general analysis by which California courts can recognize new "duties" giving rise to liability did not favor imposing liability on the district in this case.

The decision in Steven F. v. Anaheim Union High School District (Sept. 22, 2003, publication ordered Oct. 22, 2003), Case No. G026457 can be found at these links in PDF and Word formats.