2017 ORS 419B.040¹
Certain privileges not grounds for excluding evidence in court proceedings on child abuse

(1) In the case of abuse of a child, the privileges created in ORS 40.230 (Rule 504. Psychotherapist-patient privilege) to 40.255 (Rule 505. Spousal privilege), including the psychotherapist-patient privilege, the physician-patient privilege, the privileges extended to nurses, to staff members of schools and to regulated social workers and the spousal privilege, shall not be a ground for excluding evidence regarding a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof, in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 (Duty of officials to report child abuse) to 419B.050 (Authority of health care provider to disclose information).

(2) In any judicial proceedings resulting from a report made pursuant to ORS 419B.010 (Duty of officials to report child abuse) to 419B.050 (Authority of health care provider to disclose information), either spouse shall be a competent and compellable witness against the other. [1993 c.546 §21; 2009 c.442 §37; 2015 c.629 §49]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statutes

Due process does not require the appoint­ment of “independent counsel” to represent the child in every adop­tion or termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing. F. v. C., 24 Or App 601, 547 P2d 175 (1976)

When sec­ond termina­tion of parental rights pro­ceed­ing was not itself barred, proof was not limited by res judicata or collateral estoppel principles to facts or evidence which was not considered in or which came in to being after first pro­ceed­ing. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Newman, 49 Or App 221, 619 P2d 901 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute

Marital communica­tions privilege is statutorily abrogated in crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­­tions involving child abuse. State v. Suttles, 287 Or 15, 597 P2d 786 (1979)

A court has no authority to direct commence­ment of termina­tion of parental right pro­ceed­ings. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. H.B.D., 55 Or App 912, 640 P2d 660 (1982)

Statutory excep­tion to psychotherapist-patient privilege for “evidence re­gard­ing a child’s abuse, or the cause thereof,” applies in crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings to both exculpatory and incriminating evidence. State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 743 P2d 157 (1987)

In General

Listed privileges are abrogated for all judicial pro­ceed­ings, including pro­ceed­ings against per­son who could otherwise claim privilege. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. v. Spencer, 198 Or App 599, 108 P3d 1189 (2005)

Where defendant, charged with sexual abuse, sought records detailing Depart­ment of Human Services involve­ment with victim and victim’s place­ment in foster care, which predated alleged sexual abuse, this sec­tion does not require pretrial release of those records. State v. Wixom, 275 Or App 824, 366 P3d 353 (2015), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

Under Former Similar Statute

57 OLR 444 (1978)

Chapter 419B

Notes of Decisions

Due process rights of parents are al­ways implicated in construc­tion and applica­tion of pro­vi­sions of this chapter. Depart­ment of Human Services v. J.R.F., 351 Or 570, 273 P3d 87 (2012)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 419B—Juvenile Code: Dependency, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 419B, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano419B.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.